david rigby

...which assumes the payroll department understands the issue. Unfortunately, this ignores how the person was paid. Example, EE terminated on 12/29/17, and got paid on that day for a full month's compensation.

This might be correct, but it appears to be an assumption. (You are aware that people can have more than one job, aren't you?)

Words have meaning, and can be useful for correct understanding. It may be prudent to avoid "pay back", or "repay", because those terms are not indicative of a rollover. On the other hand, if the plan makes a loan, don't use the word "rollover" at the time of repayment.

Caution. This isn't the first time that 12/31 fell on a weekend. Check for precedent.

If the EE expects repayment, would a loan be more appropriate?

See IRS Publication 590-A, starting on page 40, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf

The more you observe politics, the more you've got to admit that each party is worse than the other. (Will Rogers) When the politicians complain that TV turns the proceedings into a circus, it should be made clear that the circus was already there, and that TV has merely demonstrated that not all the performers are well trained. (Edward R. Murrow) Politics: the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. (Ernest Benn) No political party can fool all of the people all of the time; that's why we have two parties. (Will Rogers) Do we really want politicians setting ethical standards for society? (me)

Talk to your ERISA attorney first. The original post said "leaving", which sounds like a separation of employment, which sounds like a distributable event. The sequence of events might be important in determining what options are available.

ASPPA has some information about webcasts here: http://www.asppa-net.org/Education/Webcasts

It's unclear from your phrasing exactly what your role is. If you represent the Plan from which the distribution came (eg, sponsor rep or TPA rep), it may be prudent to consider whether you should be involved in solving this "problem". But maybe it's just me.

From the Schedule SB portion of the 5500 instructions (emphasis mine): "... the plan administrator of any single-employer defined benefit plan ... that is subject to the minimum funding standards (see Code section 412 and Part 3 of Title I of ERISA) must obtain a completed Schedule SB (including attachments) that is prepared and signed by the plan’s enrolled actuary..."

401(k) plans do not have a Schedule SB (assuming this isn't a "DB-k" plan).

Well...... to be accurate, it matters if the plan document says so.

Where are you located? I can offer names of several attorneys for consideration. Private message.

Not accusing anyone of anything, just asking (because sometimes people mis-type). Is it a "multi-employer" plan or a "multiple-employer" plan?

You may have another problem: If the facts show that he was "over-allocated" and overpaid, but does not re-pay, does that alter the viability of hiring and/or contracting with this person? And think about this from the viewpoint of the rank-and-file EE.

Let's also point out: even if disability is "due to" an older illness/condition, that does not mean the disability itself will be deemed to date back that far. While there may be some debate about the timing, the determination will be (should be) medically based, according to plan procedures. As noted above by CuseFan, if the plan's provision about disability does not affect the plan definition of vesting, then any possible retroactive determination may have no effect on the resulting plan benefit, so you may wish to gather this information first.

Normally, vesting % is determined at the separation of employment date (quit, fire, retire, disable, die, whatever). Have you reviewed the precise definition in the plan document? in the Summary Plan Description? Observation: becoming disabled at a later date is (usually) not relevant, unless the disability determination is retroactive to on or before the separation of employment.

Data as of 12/29/17 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.45 3.45 Aa 3.57 3.54 3.56 A 3.76 3.74 3.75 Baa 4.10 4.24 4.17 Avg 3.81 3.74 3.78 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.92 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.26 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.62

Can you accomplish your goal by "un-terminating" the plan, and then "re-terminating" in 2018?

Seems like a pretty good response. Another phrasing might be, "What does the plan document say?"

Yep, every actuary with a takeover relationship has had the same thoughts. Generally, we just remove (code D) as many (lump sums) as possible next filing. If the person has previously been reported as D, so what? (To be precise, we assume such reporting is "no harm, no foul".)

Does "church plan" apply?

If the company no longer exists, presumably there are no employees and no plan, so why did the original question ask about "future 5500's"? Perhaps it's prudent to narrow down the meaning of "gone bankrupt". Maybe it's not liquidation, but reorganization? Just askin'.

Merely as a reference, it's likely most Separation Agreements include a phrase similar to: "Both parties acknowledge and agree that prior to and at the time of the division of properties as more particularly set out in this Separation Agreement, each has made a full disclosure ..."