david rigby

You might consider requesting assistance thru the American Academy of Actuaries, at this link: https://www.actuary.org/content/pension-assistance-list-pal

A good consultant would have his/her spidey-sense tingling. Ask leading questions to find out what is really going on and/or what the sponsor is really trying to accomplish. (BTW, it's not "Plan wants to amend", but "sponsor wants to amend".)

Good question. Although not exactly on point, there is PBGC guidance on a similar Q: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/53556-waiver-of-benefits/#comment-232518

Peter, any chance the filters here, https://www.efast.dol.gov/5500Search/, might be useful?

... and do this before paying the distribution.

This is cringe-worthy, because it could have been (much) more easily addressed prior to finalizing the buy-sell agreement. Assuming this proposed spinoff is being done after the corporate transaction, you will want to discuss with the Plan's attorney whether this action (creating a spinoff) might itself create a violation of the anti-cutback provisions.

My observation is that it's almost always a giant red flag to see insurance and 401k in the same sentence. I suggest you search this 401(k) Forum, using the search term "insurance".

Does the plan document have language authorizing a LS upon plan termination? Or could it be amended so?

Ding, ding, ding!

Use the Search feature, with search term "Continental" or "sham divorce".

Not required. If the buy/sell agreement says this, it's wrong. Perhaps the buyer's plan can include a waiver of this 60-day requirement for purposes of accepting rollovers?

The Search feature is very useful. In this case, searching for airline pilots, the term is "continental".

Who is "we"?

This is not my understanding, but it's possible I've misread something above. Reduction in hours worked is not a separation of service, nor a "suspension" (whatever that is). The NRA definition is NOT 5 years of vesting service, it is "fifth anniversary". Yes, this person will be 100% vested on that fifth anniversary date.

Or maybe they mean 4-yr vesting? Or something else. If they do mean the 5%/250 hours as mentioned above, don't forget to describe the additional fee you will charge to administer it. At any rate, the suggestion above by @Bird is the correct approach.

IMHO, this phrasing does not touch the survivor benefit, and the ex-spouse remains entitled to the 75% survivor portion if the spouse survives the participant. Therefore, pay attention to the actual wording in the divorce decree. Better still, actual wording in anything that attempts to be a DRO.

Is this ownership thru a qualified ESOP?

The principle is (loosely summarized) that all compensation paid by the employer to the employee is deemed to be wages unless specifically excluded. You can read IRC section 3401(a), Note, for example, subsection (12) excludes amount paid for a qualified plan. Now you know where to look. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3401

Before establishing "blame", it might be prudent to have an independent review of all statements. For example, the original post said, "processing error on the TPA side", and all subsequent comments have assumed that to be accurate. It might not be.

Ah well, some people think 1 out of 2 ain't bad.

... and please, use the correct spelling: counsel.

Here is the other post:

It's not a rollover. It's a transfer.

... or an employee became a participant and then the plan was frozen before that participant reached any service accrual.

Not "could file", but "did file".