david rigby

Possibly, a May 10 effective date could be relevant, assuming use of the 1000-hour rule for accruals. Sure, most people won't have 1000+ hours on May 10, but it's more likely than if measured at March 31 (assuming a CY plan year).

The quoted section in the OP is from Regulation 1.415(j-)-1.

As a reminder, but not necessarily relevant to your Q, the title of "president" does not automatically make someone a Key EE.

If you are asking if the 2 of you can agree on an amount for the plan to pay the other party, without the hassle of a QDRO, the answer is NO, the plan cannot pay anything to a non-participant without a valid QDRO. Your Q implies there is no current QDRO (perhaps only a draft DRO); you might be required to complete it, based on the terms of settlement agreement. If no QDRO in place, and none required (read document(s) carefully), the 2 of you can agree to a "settlement" outside of the Plan, but take note: (1) no rollover available, (2) the payment will (probably) not be taxable to the recipient. What is meant by "go to Master"?

Perhaps others can speak to this more directly: in my observation, "can't locate" might be a valid reason leading to forfeiture, but "de minimus" is not.

IRS publication on distributions from IRA's: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590b.pdf IRS publication on pension/annuity income: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf. See sections about "taxation".

Data as of 05/31/2018 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.85 3.85 Aa 3.99 3.99 3.99 A 4.17 4.20 4.19 Baa 4.60 4.84 4.72 Avg 4.25 4.22 4.24 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.59 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.76 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.93

I've occasionally received draft DRO's via email, often sent by one of the attorneys. While not perfect, it helps to see the the opposing counsel is CC on the email.

According to Wikipedia: "Lever Brothers was a British manufacturing company founded in 1885 by brothers William Hesketh Lever (1851–1925) and James Darcy Lever (1854–1916). They invested in and successfully promoted a new soap-making process invented by chemist William Hough Watson. In 1930, Lever Brothers merged with Margarine Unie to form Unilever." Is this the same company?

To the original poster, whenever you have a question to post, please start here: https://benefitslink.com/boards/ to make sure you use the most useful forum.

Well.... the reason might be the anticipation of a QDRO. BTW, I think the answer is that such a change would apply to future accruals only. However, more detailed analysis might be appropriate, esp. to review the current conditions.

Do you mean this? https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/recent-interest-rate-notices

Owner wants to defer something. Perhaps a DB plan can help.

Owner should contact an actuary.

Ding, ding, ding. As usual, Effen gives good advice. However, #3 might need some "broadening". I've seen many (!) examples where the a VT participant (with a valid SSN) was identified as "having returned to his/her home country, but no known address". In that case , see #4.

Use of the pronoun "we" in the OP may be ambiguous, since readers don't really know the relationship to the plan or the sponsor (TPA, accountant, atty, actuary, etc). As an actuary, I have always recommended seeking a DL, but I also recommend getting advice from a qualified ERISA atty. I've seen several terminations (some small, some not) where the atty made a different recommendation, and made a very good case for it. Analysis/recommendation from ERISA counsel is the correct approach, more so than from any other advisor. As stated above, it is a decision of the PA.

A little generic history: ERISA imposed the requirement that a PLAN be in writing, primarily because many "plans" previously were not written, thus enabling (nearly) unlimited abuse. (IMHO, this is the single most important provision of ERISA.)

It might be hasty to assume that a new entity (C) was created in the asset purchase.

My spidey-sense suggests there may be relevant facts not yet presented.

Data as of 04/30/18 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.95 3.95 Aa 4.01 4.10 4.06 A 4.19 4.24 4.22 Baa 4.63 4.84 4.74 Avg 4.28 4.28 4.28 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.67 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.87 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.04

There ought to be a way to punish Tom for this.

Just a hunch: the desired exclusion is merely a manifestation of something else going on. A good consultant would probe further, to (help) determine if there is another way to meet the underlying need.

I like this statement made at the 2018 Enrolled Actuaries Meeting: "you can have land in your plan, or you can have me as your actuary, but you can't have both."

... and, no, the J&S waiver did not eliminate a right to seek a QDRO.

Hmmm. "Everyone gets it" does not automatically make something safe harbor, or non-discriminatory. I'm not sure if the proposal will cause a failure of 401(l), but I suspicious. At any rate, if the proposed additional service is restricted to the "base" portion of the benefit, it should be acceptable. However, I'm interested in why this is being proposed. Is it to "use up" some excess assets? There are multiple ways to address that.