david rigby

As Mike has efficiently stated, the answer to this question is probably in the plan document.

In all similar cases I've seen, the EE cost has been larger only because the total cost declined year-over-year, and the ER did not want to bother with a small change. Important: in such cases, this differential has been small, and probable reversed in one or two years. The ER was trying to keep it simple.

Two dealerships does not automatically mean two companies. BTW, maybe address the original questions to legal counsel for the Employer?

Please explain. Are you asking the community to help you do research? Why does the link require personal information?

Well ...... could there be anything else at issue? Such as a possible partial termination? Any relevant collective bargaining agreement? Failing any special situations, the advice above is correct. Just make sure you follow the plan's procedures related to claims and/or appeals.

Don't know, but my hunch would be Yes. However, perhaps you can ask:https://www.virginia.gov/services/freedom-of-information-act/

Best idea yet!

What does the plan say? As mentioned above, filing with the IRS is optional. However, I've seen documents that make it mandatory.

You might also try searching these BenefitsLink Message Boards. Perhaps search terms such as "real estate" or "real property".

I think you are focusing on dollars when the plan defines the employer match using percent(s). Let's try a simple example: Comp per pay period is $1,000. You elect to defer 10% (ie, $100). The company match should be 200% of your first 2% (ie, 200% of $20 = $40), plus 50% of your next 4% (ie, 50% of $40 = $20). Total company match = $60.

Why is the tax filing status a concern of the plan? Could the plan satisfy it's obligation by providing the W-4P, to be completed by the estate (If you have forgotten, Line 1 of the W-4P is "Check here if you do not want any federal income tax withheld from your pension or annuity.)"

What about the other default withholding? 10%?

Trying to read between the lines, it sounds like there may be no separate amendment to freeze the plan (unusual but not impossible). Whether or not a separate amendment exists, it is essential to understand what the plan says/intends. If it simply states "the benefit is frozen at 1/1/16" (or something similar), two things should happen: (1) the person who drafted the plan should be drawn and quartered, and (2) someone must interpret the exact words that do exist. IMHO, a plain reading of "freeze" or "frozen" means no further accruals, and 415 participating service would not be an override. In other words, if the plan is intended to allow for growth in the benefit solely due to additional participating service, that plan provision should be stated clearly; if it's not there, it doesn't exist. Other readers may have different views.

There are different applications of the term "frozen". The place to start is the freeze amendment.

5500 instructions may already provide an answer. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/plan-administration-and-compliance/reporting-and-filing/form-5500

Note that the divorce decree has no authority to require that the plan retain (or dispose of) any particular investment.

BTW, there are a few references to "estate" in the W-4P instructions.

Just in case it has not been clear from earlier comments, a pre-nup is not a valid "release" for a beneficiary designation under any qualified plan.

Well......... An estate can't do a rollover, can it? And (therefore) the 20% withholding rules don't apply, do they? Does the plan need the estate's TIN (different from the deceased's SSN)?

Perhaps it is also prudent to review Publication 590-B. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590b.pdf

Absolutely, the S-O-L question should be addressed to the attorney. However, w/r/t the Enrolled Actuary, the sponsor can either (1) hire another EA to look at it, or (2) pay up per PBGC proposed solution. No records prior to 2002 could be a problem, but the (new) EA will review based on whatever data the PBGC had. Note that hiring another EA might not mean reviewing every participant, perhaps only a sample.

IRS Publication 590-A. Page 20. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590a.pdf

Could it depend on the definition of "promoter"?

Exactly! Any possibility the PBGC made a mistake? Get the actuary involved.

Different, but related topic: get some pre-marriage counseling!