david rigby

Has this other professional provided a cite to such DOL guidance?

If it were me, the Code of Professional Conduct for the actuarial profession would be relevant. I would make sure I had all the facts and make sure nothing in my service agreement prohibited my "speaking up", and then speak up. None of us should tolerate theft.

The plan is the beneficiary of what?

Not weird at all. Although not experienced by every plan, this circumstance has occurred before, and every ERISA attorney or every TPA has considered it.

https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/accounts/small_business_retirement

If you want to reply to this question, please go to this duplicate post: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/64925-taxation-of-lloyds-specialty-life-insurance/&tab=comments#comment-297286

Any other boxes checked? Especially Box e, "did service provider receive indirect compensation?" (BTW, line 2 is for vendors receiving more than $5K.)

What does this mean under the plan terms?

The due date is statutory. ERISA (remember?) states the annual report (ie, 5500) is due at the end of the seventh month after the plan-year-end. The IRS has statutory authority (somewhat general, I think) to extend certain deadlines up to 75 days.

It may be of interest to learn that this question was included in an early Gray Book (Q&A 94-28). Proof Required to Avoid Spousal Waiver of QJSA or QPSA -- 401(a)(11), 417 Reg. Section 1.401(a)-20 (Q&A-27) provides that spousal consent to waive a QJSA or QPSA is not required if the plan representative is satisfied that there is no spouse or that the spouse cannot be located. In establishing to its satisfaction that there is no spouse due to divorce or legal separation, is the participant required to provide legal proof of the divorce or legal separation? RESPONSE: The plan administrator may rely on a certification by the participant that he is divorced or legally separated. However, it would be a good idea to request legal proof in situations where the employer has knowledge that indicates or suggests that the participant is married.

Is this common? If so, you might want to consider amending the plan to a simpler method. Yes, such method might conflict with your need to "count pennies"; trade-offs.

Take note: there might be advantages to creating a DB plan now, using a very low benefit level, and amending (ie, increasing) the benefit later when additional income is available. Ask your actuary.

…. or better.

Data as of September 30, 2019 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.01 3.01 Aa 3.21 2.97 3.09 A 3.35 3.31 3.33 Baa 3.68 4.07 3.88 Avg 3.41 3.34 3.38 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.55 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.61 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.03 Observation: Comparing the Avg rates to 12 months prior, current Bond rates are about 100 points lower. Comparing the Avg rates to 6 months prior, current Bond rates are about 70 points lower.

Agree with the advice above. While very unusual (and very undesirable, from the plan's viewpoint), if the "plan administrator" is saying the payment form can be modified, then maybe the plan does allow it. It's up to the lawyers to inquire.

Don't forget: If you are still within 60 days, you can do a rollover (all or part). This is described in the "Special Tax Notice", which you should have received at the time you elected your distribution.

Maybe. The tax withholding is a default percentage, not the actual tax.. You will include the total distribution in your total taxable income when you file your tax return for he year. Depending on all your income/deductions/credits, you may owe more or get a refund. It appears your distribution was eligible for rollover to an IRA. To the extent you rollover some or part of it, that portion will not be part of your taxable income.

My point is vesting, and therefore the correct date for the first RMD.

Oversimplified (hence misleading). ERISA (et al) limits the degree of discrimination, but does not prohibit it.

Top heavy?

Might is the important word. I've seen examples where the "CPA firm" just waves its hands at whatever the owner wants/says, and such review has no integrity.

Don't overlook the value of an amendment to document this. Even if it's administered correctly, it is useful to have adequate documentation so all understand what/why/when.

Merge the plans?

That sounds correct. Note that the test for the 2019 audit is based on the B-O-Y participant count.

The precise definition prob includes something like "...first day of the plan year that includes the fifth anniversary of plan participation". Thus, the NRD is fixed when he/she becomes a participant, and subsequent changes in the PY have no effect. IMHO.