david rigby

Are you the actuary? If not, have you discussed this with the actuary? Rules for such changes can be found in Rev. Proc. 2017-56. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2017-44_IRB#RP-2017-56

IMHO, you cannot answer the question of "is this above/below LS threshold" until after you have answered the other question. Is there any other guidance (or plan provision) to suggest otherwise? BTW, I'm not sure that additional interest is the only (or correct) option for your adjustment. My first thought would be to include the "missed" monthly payments, with interest adjustment; but there might be valid alternatives. Also, look for any precedent (whether or not deceased)?

Too bad. That's what TH is for. BTW, some good consulting might review the actual turnover and measure how much impact the TH schedule will "cost" (maybe not much). Good consulting might also review the plan demographics and consider whether there is something to delay to plan becoming TH (maybe, not necessarily).

Don't overlook the plan responsibility to ask the participant for the overpayment, noting that such overpayment is not eligible for rollover. (You may not get it back, but the first step is to ask.)

Assuming the Plan performed the termination correctly, and passed the info and $$ to the PBGC correctly, the Plan is done. Provide the participant with the PBGC contact information.

Discrimination! BTW, this sounds like a BRF failure. But maybe others have some relevant experience.

have you considered that: 1. the participant may be deceased? 2. the participant may not be a US citizen and has returned to his/her home country?

See good advice from Larry. One minor clarification: a QDRO is part of a property settlement, which can precede the finalization of a divorce.

Not a lawyer. In general, a DRO is an order of the court, not the two spouses, so signing may not be relevant unless required by state court procedures. However, consider whether his action(s) might be defiance of a judge (ie, contempt of court). Your attorney has to run with this ball.

Data as of 11/30/2018 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.22 4.22 Aa 4.45 4.38 4.42 A 4.53 4.54 4.54 Baa 5.07 5.49 5.28 Avg 4.68 4.66 4.67 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.83 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.94 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.25

Perhaps the TPA and the plan sponsor can recognize practicality: pay it all, and get the sponsor to pay the distribution fee.

Encourage more deferrals, especially by the HCEs. (Of course, this is meant as "relative to only one match")

ACP yes. But this design may cause some strain on the ADP test as well.

Where is the burden of proof? If a PA requires a copy of the marriage certificate to document a retiring employee's claim of marriage (as some do), would it be consistent to require some analogous proof from anyone claiming marriage thru common law status?

Does this plan file 2 different 5500s?

If this church is part of a national church organization, also look to see if there are any national standards. I think class-year vesting would be permissible, but NOT advisable. Many ways to mis-communicate it, mis-understand it, and mis-administer it. Why bother? (This is not a rhetorical question. I advise the sponsoring organization have clearly defined goal(s) here.)

This is a circumstance that needs frank discussion with the plan's actuary. Any other participants? Is the owner's 415 limit likely to increase soon (eg, what is the owner's age)? Is the excess considered "a lot"? Is the death benefit properly defined and funded? (Other actuaries will ask questions I haven't thought of.)

The OP asks about "collect penalty free". Does this mean a rollover is not anticipated? Termination at 55 or distribution after 59-1/2 are only two of the characteristics that provide exemption to the 10% penalty. Do any of the others apply?

Pardon me, the term "personal accounts" is ambiguous. Does this mean the PS plan accounts of the husband and wife, or something else? Are RMDs being paid?

Is there another DB plan into which this plan could be merged?

I have seen govt. plans that include language similar to "anti-cutback" language of 411(d)(6). Thus, even if the provision can be removed, even if permitted by law, such action might not affect benefits already accrued.

The plan itself can include such provision(s). Removing them by amendment might be possible, or not.

A recent discussion that might be relevant to your Q: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/63283-inerest-rate-for-pension-loans/

As a reminder, the "mailbox rule" means a real postmark, which may differ from when you put something in a mailbox. Could that be the diff?

I agree. Never seen it happen.