david rigby

TH years. See IRC 416(c)(1)(C) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section416&num=0&edition=prelim

Better than counting zeros (because a number might not have any zeros), you can count the commas: one million has 2 commas, 1 billion has 3 commas, 1 trillion has 4 commas, etc.

Although not directly related to your filing question, who is paying for the software? Specifically, are the clients of XYZ subsidizing the clients of ABC?

IRA. If you put it in personal account, the net effect will be to (magically) change it from pre-tax dollars to already-taxed dollars.

Have you considered IRC 414(p)(4)(A)(iii)?

I believe (check the details yourself) that the filing deadline is extended but interest penalties (but not late penalty) may still apply.

@fmsinc Can you add a link to what you are quoting?

Don't know. The 04/04/25 IRS news release, first sentence, at this page, https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/, includes the phrase, "...2024 federal income tax returns and tax payments for tax year 2024 are due on..." Using only that language, the answer to your question would be NO. However, you need to do some more research on your own. BTW, the IRS does not control when PBGC filings are due. Have you checked the DOL website?

Ah, a great reason to hire an actuary! I'm retired, with expired continuing education, so I cannot do it for you, but can recommend several very good pension actuaries.

From the phrasing of the original question, "we" appears to be a TPA (or something similar). As @Peter Gulia states, your service agreement will be the first place to start. He also (correctly) implies that the action of the TPA may be guided by its own attorney, who will also pay attention to the comments/advice from the plan's attorney. Those are not the same person. I would never expect to "go to the wake and see the deceased." (My Dad was cremated.) One other way to consider "proof of death" might be whether there is a published obituary. (Sorry, I don't know if fraudulent obits are a thing.)

One might. But I seek to understand the issue better: suppose the distribution is on 10/1/25, and the plan sponsor shuts its doors on 10/02/25. Does this make any difference?

In addition to the above excellent comments, the answer to your question is YES.

If this is a 401k-plan, maybe the PY is affected by the 402(g) limit's effective date?

It might be prudent to verify exactly when this status occurred; i.e., if he changed to 1099-status on 1/1/25, that would differ from that status being effective sometime before that date.

Is a partial termination a distributable event? I say NO. Many years ago, I did research (and posted it somewhere herein, sorry don't remember the date or which forum, possibly using my non de plume Pax) on the phrase "partial termination". As best I recall, the phrase appears exactly twice in the entire Internal Revenue Code. I'm not going to do that research again, but only the cite in IRC 411 is relevant to pension plans; its only impact is to award 100% vesting to certain "affected" participants. Nothing else. My conclusion is that the use of the word "termination" was not perfect, and was a compromise in the text, in order to get the desired result of 100% vesting. Don't overthink it.

Who says, "the rest of the plan's assets remain invested?" Isn't the investment of all parts of the asset pool a fiduciary decision?

Well, I am an actuary, and I'm also grateful for the question. Discussion above about communication is the central issue and answer. This works both ways; when there is turnover, the best action is to proactively introduce the new staff member (such as assistant, banker, investment advisor, auditor, attorney, analyst, actuary) to all the other teams who have an interest in the project/client. In addition, make sure there is clear understanding of who needs what information, who provides the information, and when it is needed. There are many examples of other professionals who have a specific responsibility, but the actuary has the expertise to help, even without credit. Example 1, in the case of a DB plan sponsor with GAAP financial reporting, there is a need to develop a market-based discount rate; the actuary will have significant ability to help with this (probably having done so many times), even though not the final decision. This will be of use to both plan sponsor and auditor. Example 2, the attorney may draft a new plan document or various documents related to merger or acquisition; the actuary will appreciate being asked to review any such documents in advance; if related to M&A, the actuary will opine on all types of employee benefit plans but also contributing w/r/t administrative procedures outside the attorney's knowledge base. Example 3, when a company-to-be-acquired has nonvested or partially vested participants in one or more qualified plans, the actuary can provide help with evaluating the cost of awarding 100% vesting immediately prior to the transaction, information that could be useful to both the company and any other negotiators. Example 4, the actuary knows to ask about other possible plans when there is a Top-Heavy concern or a 415-limit concern; I've seen many prior cases where a DC plan vendor was not aware of the DB plan existence, and when so informed, that DC vendor did not understand the concept of "required aggregation group".

Yep. BTW, there is no "...if I were to pass away". Each of us will pass away, with certainty. Also, be careful about the degree to which she is named as a survivor for J&S purposes. It might be all, or only a portion, of your ultimate benefit. If it's only a portion, then your subsequent spouse will be the survivor for the remaining portion. In case it isn't clear to you, "survivor benefit" means she does begin receiving until after your demise. Note there are many possible permutations of the various contingencies. For example, if SHE has concerns about her own health, then she might be willing to take something now. Similarly, if YOU have doubts about the health of yourself and/or your spouse, that might lead you to different concerns.

Yes. As @Effen points out, the chart on the IRS website is useful and organized but is sometimes not updated timely. Recent "developments" in DC might be the cause of delay, now and in the future. Also, the "drop" website in the second link above will have IRS documents (regulations, notices, announcements, procedures) posted, often a few days before an official release date. Very useful; it should be bookmarked on your computer. In the case at hand, the segment rates are always issued via IRS Notice, usually 10-15 days after the end of the month; in that link above, Notice 25-17 is embedded in the URL as "n-25-17". The "parent" URL is https://www.irs.gov/downloads/irs-drop, where you can use similar patterns to look for other documents. At this URL, the column headings can be used to sort.

I thought of that also. For the small sample I viewed, on page 2, for Item 3a, Plan Administrator's name and address, the form uses the checkbox, "Same as Plan Sponsor", which points back to the info in Box 2. BTW, FedEx has a very large number of welfare plan filings. Maybe someone could interest them in the concept of a "wrap plan". 😉

When will this business manager be fired?

Maybe some additional contact information is available by perusing the state's website that administers/records company records. Perhaps it's the state's Secretary of State, or "corporation commission", etc. For example, in my state of NC, the Secretary of State website has a very useful feature that allows easy searches, by company name, by person name, etc. This may identify one or more contact names that you don't already have; perhaps an attorney name; maybe get some info on @Peter Gulia's important reference to bankruptcy.

Not familiar with Disney or Fidelity procedures, but it is common to submit a draft DRO to the plan administrator (perhaps that is Fidelity in this case?) to make sure it does not ask the plan to do something the plan cannot do. This draft has (very likely) not been seen by the court. It's done by the parties/attorneys. Then, if necessary, it gets tweaked, sent to the court, then sent to the PA. Only the PA can determine if a DRO meets the requirments to become a QDRO. Plus, what Belgarath said.

As I recall, there is also a requirement that the relevant benefit is "subject to good faith bargaining". Not sure if anyone has defined that term, but it may be possible to fail the test.

While @Peter Gulia reasonably posits/considers that maintaining/collecting any gender information for a DC plan database may be superficial and/or unnecessary, I suggest it may be explained by inertia: the gender data element is merely one of many items that were collected from the beginning of time. It is important to collect gender ID is a defined benefit plan database if that database is used for actuarial valuations and/or determining actuarial equivalency in optional forms of annuity benefit. Consider a payroll/HR data collection: is it important for an employer to have a gender ID? From a payroll perspective, maybe not; but that data collection was (and is) often used for other purposes, including passing data to providers of medical or life or disability insurance. Hence, it is just one of many data elements of what many consider a "complete" database. I have also seen such data be one of many clues when there is question about someone's identity. Also, before the days of same-sex marriage, it might be a "flag" to question whether data supplied by a vendor (or plan sponsor) contains errors. For example, suppose the data supplied contains a gender code of M for everyone, but is for a hospital known to have about 60%-80% female population; that anomaly should make you question not only the legitimacy of that data element but also ask about other data validity. Don't laugh, I've seen it.