david rigby

Well, in my experience, there is one more important task: put a hardcopy note in your hardcopy file of the forms, describing what you are doing, why, and when. It's OK to to also use an e-note, but it's best to have a note that is handwritten, dated, and signed. (If you've ever found such a note in a file, you will understand how much credibility it carries.) Do not rely on anyone's memory! If there is a plan audit, make sure the auditor gets an explanation.

Actuary (No, I'm not advocating that others use that term; I'm advocating that plan sponsors hire an actuary.) BTW, in my 40+ years of observation, there are many TPAs who have very little understanding of consulting.

True, but many posts on these Boards have omitted key information relevant to the question. Sometimes it helps to ask, rather than assume.

Would it help to look at lines 8j and 13b and 13c?

Maybe you've already done this, so just a caution. Those previously omitted NHCEs were omitted for a reason. Double-check to make sure whether that omission might have been correct. OK, it might be a stretch, but it's worth looking first.

Has the actuary considered/discussed a replacement (dc) plan?

IBNR?

Just clarifying, are you referring to plan sponsored by A? It appears you want to count capital gains from a corporate sale as employee compensation; does that meet the plan's definition of comp? On another note, did the owners/HCEs negotiate so that B (or B's plan) will recognize all the A-service? For example, this would enable the NHCEs to participate in B's plan (assuming there is one) immediately. If not, perhaps there is still time to do so. (BTW, if the answer to that question is NO, my response is "shame on you".)

Maybe it's just me, but I find it interesting that the court ordered the legal counsel to do something. No mention of who pays for it, which could have a bearing on the lack of any draft so far.

I may have a couple of suggestions, depending on what state the ER is located. If desired, you can send me a private message.

Perhaps this is none of my business. While the TPA is that may have no bearing on the TPA's actions. This could be an opportunity to re-read your service agreement.

You might also focus on the definition of "compensation" that is/should be included in the SPD.

Duplicate post. Put responses here:

Find a large nearby bank that offers trust services, and ask. If they don't want your business (perhaps they have a minimum size?), they may be able to recommend someone else.

Let's be clear here: when using the word "participant" in this post, do you mean that word to refer to the beneficiary?

Often, but not always, that "someone" is an attorney who is well-versed in QDROs (not all divorce lawyers are described by this statement). However, if the Plan in question is sponsored by a governmental organization (eg, a state employees' plan), then QDRO rules do not automatically apply; but many such plans have adopted similar rules. Therefore, your "someone" should know those rules also.

... and also well-versed in how little of ERISA applies to plans sponsored by governmental organizations.

Data as of June 30, 2020 (Tuesday) fourht month-end after beginning of Coved-19 pandemic/isolation Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial CorporateAaa NA 2.34 2.34Aa 2.77 2.42 2.60A 3.00 2.90 2.95Baa 3.38 3.80 3.59Avg 3.05 2.87 3.96 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield AveragesShort-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.21Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 0.45 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 1.25 Observation: (1) Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current rates are about 45 points lower. (2) Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current rates are about 75 points lower.

Why are you yelling?

Caution, this could mean that whoever prepares the W-2s is not familiar with the rules. The original poster might consider whether to (1) alert the plan sponsor to get some advice from its auditor, and/or (2) assume future W-2s could include this (and other) errors. IOW, think outside the box.

Not dancing, but I would be willing to be a participant in the plan, just to be helpful in using up the surplus. ?

Confusing to me is use of the word "client". (It's Friday and my brain is already shutting down.) Just a suggestion, but it might help if you avoid that word, instead using word(s) that are more instructive of the relationship to the plan, the sponsor, the participant(s), the trustee, etc.

Also, take note that you don't have to split it. That is, following advice above, your attorney will help determine how to value the ESOP (and every other asset), which can then be used in "horse-trading". Do not assume each asset must be split, rather focus on splitting the total. Because there can be an administrative cost to each split, part of the negotiation can consider how to minimize those admin costs.

I agree that it's probably pretty easy to "target" the affected participant. However, could there be a 411d6 issue w/r/t such amendment?

Probably, the suggestion for a retroactive amendment was intended to deal only with this participant, so that it does not necessarily extend indefinitely.