david rigby

It's not a stretch to think the goal of the appeal is NOT "reinstate" but something else, likely money. The original poster should thank @Peter Gulia for his extraordinary list of questions. Of course, as he often states, he's not giving legal advice, but he gave some pretty awesome "non-legal" advice.

Both Manhart and Norris involved governmental plans. Technically, those decisions did not apply to other plans, at the time.

Don't forget to consider whether any communication received is a claim, which then triggers the claim procedures in the plan document. It's possible that the plan has decided "correctly" but still has not responded to one or more claims according to the plan requirements. The plan's ERISA counsel will likely remind the plan of this procedure.

You misunderstand the application of Norris. The ruling states that you cannot use different tables for males vs. females. You can use any table so long as it is reasonable for the stated purpose, and defined in the plan (ie, the "definitely determinable" requirement of ERISA), and you apply it equally for males and females. Using different tables for participants vs. beneficiaries is also acceptable (likely, it is advisable). The definition you quote is probably reasonable, but other reasonable tables are also possible. The Enrolled Actuary can provide examples of several different tables/updates.

Yes, and that means the Plan's legal counsel, not counsel for either party. If "plan administrator" refers to a TPA, the plan's legal counsel can discuss with the TPA legal counsel, but the former overrules the latter.

The interest of clarity and good documentation is always appropriate. Do an amendment, whether or not required.

Since you used the term "primary beneficiary", perhaps there is, either by affirmative action or by plan provision, a secondary beneficiary. Check the company personnel file for any other possible beneficiary election, and then check the definition in the plan document. Hint: the document might define someone else before the estate. BTW, you will eventually pay someone (estate or a real person), don't forget the withholding rules: an estate is not eligible to open an IRA, so a payment to an estate is not rollable, therefore the (usual) 20% withholding does not apply. Next in line is the "other withholding" rate of 10%, but the estate has the right to elect zero withholding. Read the instructions for the W-4R form. https://www.irs.gov/forms-pubs/about-form-w-4r

@John Feldt ERPA CPC QPA Can you do this the other way? Since your list shows only one item that does NOT increase, what is the minimum inflation of August/September that will cause that limit to increase?

Many years back in my actuarial career, I was employed as a benefits administrator for a large corporation. The parent company was (constantly) involved in buying or selling subsidiaries. Our in-house attorneys were kind enough to invite me to read a draft buy-sell arrangement. I offered several (six or eight) different changes they had never thought about, concerning various benefit programs, on both sides. This included pointing out that this or that change might have some cost, but any additional cost was likely to be very little, and could be worth much more in positive PR. It made an impression, and I was invited to contribute when later M&A stuff arose. While it may have seemed small, I've been proud of helping those attorneys, who took that advice forward into their own later careers. The lesson (similar to what RBG says above): it's important to get multiple types of expertise involved at the beginning, because some omissions (i.e., mistakes) cannot be easily remedied after the transaction is closed. And pay attention to effective dates.

Exactly! The date(s) on which assets move (by the way, there might be no requirement to any such asset movement), is a matter for the recordkeeping (ie, documentation) of the trust. It has nothing to do with any effective date of plan merger. It is a mistake to conflate these two items, and would (likely) result in incorrect information being attached to the 5500, audit report, participant statements, etc.

Why? As mentioned in a previous thread, if the merger documents are properly defined and executed, the location of the assets is NOT relevant.

It might be useful to note that several sections of ERISA Title 2 (i.e., the portion of ERISA that amends the Internal Revenue Code) contain subsections that describe exemptions. For example, IRC 410 (Minimum Participation Standards) includes subsection (c): (c) Application of participation standards to certain plans (1) The provisions of this section (other than paragraph (2) of this subsection) shall not apply to- (A) a governmental plan (within the meaning of section 414(d)), (B) a church plan (within the meaning of section 414(e)) with respect to which the election provided by subsection (d) of this section has not been made, (C) a plan which has not at any time after September 2, 1974, provided for employer contributions, and (D) a plan established and maintained by a society, order, or association described in section 501(c)(8) or (9) if no part of the contributions to or under such plan are made by employers of participants in such plan. (2) A plan described in paragraph (1) shall be treated as meeting the requirements of this section for purposes of section 401(a), except that in the case of a plan described in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1), this paragraph shall apply only if such plan meets the requirements of section 401(a)(3) (as in effect on September 1, 1974). Note: (c)(1)(A) includes a cross-reference to IRC 414 for definition, and (c)(2) above specifies that the exemption in paragraph (1) applies only if the plan meets the legal requirements in effect on the day before ERISA was effective. The plan sponsor should discuss this issue with an ERISA attorney.

In my 40+ years, I've probably seen one or two plans that permit non-consecutive years in the FAC definition. Sorry, don't remember any of the details. Is it allowed? Of course. Is it wise? Probably yes for an owner-only plan. Caution don't forget about the 415 definition(s).

I agree with @Effen and @CuseFan. I know of no reason why ANY "audit" would affect the timing of a legitimate payment. Hunch 1: the person you talked with had no idea why it was delayed and decided to throw out the word "audit" as a means of getting you to shut up/go away. You are entitled to a better (i.e., correct) explanation. Hunch 2: there may be a staffing reason, such that somebody is working on the Form 5500 and (therefore) cannot spend the time to process the payment; if so, this is a terrible reason for intentionally delaying a payment. Also @Effen's comment about adjustment for any delayed payment date (for whatever reason) is exactly correct.

Because January 1 is a "special date". Since it is usually a holiday, almost no one starts a new job on that date, in which case, many Employers will interpret their document: an employee hired on 01/02/yy will enter on 01/01/yy+1. (It happened to me once.) This policy might not apply to any other dates. Accordingly, I suggest trying other dates for your analysis.

I agree that the phrase in boldface above as presented by @Peter Gulia might lead to the conclusion that the rollover described in the original post IS as "related rollover". However, the original 416 regs date to 1984, with some later amendments; I observe that the QDRO universe has evolved significantly since then. Is it possible to conclude that the 416 statute and reg did not imagine the situation at hand? I say Yes. The spouse receiving the QDRO award had the choice (OK, I'm assuming) to take a rollover to his/her IRA or a transfer/rollover to his/her 401k account. IMHO, the TH treatment should NOT differ for these two choices. BTW, I checked the Gray Book; nothing on point. Maybe some of our attorney contributors could check prior IRS/ABA Q&As?

Seems like a good idea to have it all in writing.

Hunch: this question may have been addressed previously. Try using the Search feature. Maybe search words "related rollover" and "QDRO", but don't restrict your search to only this forum.

Geez, why make it complicated? Think of BOTH as a minimum allocation as: one-seventh, one-sixth, one-fifth, one-fourth, etc.

Here's an idea: since the "higher powers" don't know the rules and (implied above) don't believe what has been presented here, they should hire @Carol V. Calhoun to provide them some legal advice.

I use this one: https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/tax-code-regulations-and-official-guidance By the way, although this is an IRS site, other information is also available (eg, the Department of Labor is under Title 29, etc.) If I "misplace" that bookmark, I'll go to the Cornell Law School reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/

Another point: Statement in the original post that the 403b plan "was informed that the ... RMD ... was not distributed". Who did the informing? If someone knew it was not distributed, why didn't it get done? This may seem trivial, but it goes to the very serious question of both competency and thoroughness of someone in the administrative chain, perhaps multiple someone's.

As usual, @Peter Gulia is thorough. The big picture way to think about this is (first link above), the beginning of IRC section 3121(a) says: That is, the portion of the statute that follows is a list of exceptions or "carve-outs". For example, subsection 5 includes the carve-outs of various retirement plans. No non-qualified plan is in that list, so we must conclude that it is not excluded from "wages".

I see two operational failures (at least as described in the original post): The second sentence states that "company X" directs the "cashout". I hope it is the Plan terms that do the directing. (Possibly this is not a real problem, other than poor phrasing. Just being cautious, maybe it's worthwhile to read the relevant plan provisions for verification.) The distribution appears to be 100% of the account. This implies the participant was never offered an opportunity to do a rollover. As @CuseFan states, this might be OK if the check was issued as a "rollover check".

Merely to act as a valid cross-reference, this discussion in a different forum is QDRO-related.