david rigby

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!

Is there a policy issued?

As far as I can tell, this "proposal" relates only to the tax, not the SS benefit calculation.

I think it depends on the terms of the plan. Termination of the plan is (typically) a distributable event, so separation of employment may not be required, but most plan terminations I've seen do not include any "separation of employment" clause for those still active. If the plan purchases an annuity for an active, the annuity provisions must include all the potential early retirement options, which means the insurance company will probably ignore any separation of employment provision, and the most expensive of all E.R. permutations will determine the annuity cost.

Pardon me if I don't understand the question. If the TPA firm is providing Relius SOC1/SOC2 statement(s) to an auditor, that does not cover the controls and procedures of the TPA firm itself. Does the auditor understand the difference? Alternatively, if the TPA firm is implying that such SOC1/SOC2 statement(s) are for the TPA firm, that sounds like deliberate deception. As someone already stated: fraud.

Data as of May 31, 2017 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.75 3.75 Aa 3.83 3.84 3.84 A 4.01 3.99 4.00 Baa 4.38 4.49 4.44 Avg 4.07 4.02 4.05 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.57 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.99 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.68

While #1 might be "cheaper" than the annuity purchase, it may also include some other issues. I recommend you discuss this with an experienced pension actuary. May also be worthwhile to discuss with (or at least mention to) the plan's ERISA attorney.

Look over other messages on this same Message Board. For example, https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/59844-starting-a-tpa-firm-from-scratch-need-help/ https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56153-starting-new-tpa-practice/

Not dispositive to the original question, just a reminder that pronouns sometimes need clarity (ie, "she" and "her"): fiancée = a woman engaged to be married. fiancé = a man engaged to be married.

If this implies a desire for opinion from a second legal counsel, send me a private message and I'll offer a few names to consider.

If you paid it (without regard to who is actually creating the check): (1) using the correct plan name, then (2) issue a 1099-R using the correct plan name and (now deceased) trust EIN, will that accomplish the goal of making it roll-able?

Let's acknowledge some possible variation. Start with the presumption that all those terminated during the time period (which may cross into a subsequent plan year, depending on facts and circumstances) are those "affected". Then the sponsor has the right to review and determine if some of them are not affected due to those F&C (for example, an employee death). Next comes the documentation: as mentioned other times, it is advisable to amend the plan to document the 100% vesting, so it's in writing. Finally, I strongly suggest you review prior discussions by searching the Defined Benefit message board; go to the top and click on "Forums (Message Boards)". Your search term will be "partial termination" or "affected".

Might depend on the definition of your "client" relationship: CPA? TPA? attorney? etc. No matter what the answer is, your "do not give investment advice" comment might answer your own query. If it were me, I would just laugh at mention of bitcoins.