david rigby

Also advisable to avoid confusing terminology. Whenever I've seen this option, it has been labeled something like "contingent annuitant option", to distinguish from the ERISA-defined "joint and survivor annuity".

Duplicate post. See here:

Rather than worry about the participant count, someone should first determine whether this was a plan termination, or a plan merger. It cannot be both.

Might it also be possible that one or more of those boxes is completed incorrectly? Ask the question to the person who completed the form.

Run!

IMHO, these are your files. However, it may be prudent to send PDF copies anyway, stating that you are doing so for the client’s convenience, and are retaining your files. But, check your service agreement first.

This implies the EEs will be participating in the "new" plan on 05/01, but ... this might imply only employment status. The seller should have negotiated immediate participation; if not, someone dropped the ball.

Perhaps he should ask an actuary about a defined benefit plan.

Perhaps the custodian might exercise some common sense? Contact the sister, make sure she knows what's going on, and ask her to help get her brother to do something (e.g., disclaim, take a distribution, etc).

IRC 404(o)(1)

You can also ask the PBGC: https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/coverage-determination-instructions.pdf https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/coverage-determination-form.pdf

Respectfully, I disagree. This is a participant claim or looks like one. Claim procedures are part of every plan document. The Plan cannot avoid this by reeling in the DOL. Follow the document!

Ultimately, it is simple: The Plan (not the TPA/employer/anyone else) has a claim. Treat it as such, using the plan (and SPD) terms to respond. This is likely a case where the PA should engage an ERISA attorney for help/advice.

Quote the plan provision that prohibits such change.

And make sure it does not happen again!

Be careful. In addition to ESOP Guy's caution, your spidey-sense should be tingling. Ask questions to find out what else is going on. IMHO, there is a 99% probability some other issue exists. If you need some prompts, consider questions about ownership, relationship(s) with other HCEs, change (or no change) in responsibility/duties.

To be clear, this filing information goes thru the IRS, but they don't use it. The SSA is the agency that uses this information.

None of the above mentions the "magic" acronym: HCE. Is it cynical to wonder if these "former employees who retired long ago" might be, or would have been, HCEs?

Always talk to your actuary.

Isn't this statutory?

Yep. Also, I've been known to use it as a research tool. For example, when I can't remember what reg to look for, i might get a useful prompt from someone else's comment(s).

Meeting the definition of disability is one thing. Does he also have a distributable event? Hint: you wrote, "not officially terminated". Read the document.

IMHO, the phrase "lump sum window" should not be used in the context of a plan termination.

Perhaps proper TH testing would look to the benefits of Key EEs.

Here's one: http://www.datair.com/rates.htm Originals are in IRS Revenue Rulings: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/revenue-rulings