david rigby

Isn't it well-known that a 403(b) plan cannot be merged into a 401(a) plan, or vice versa? Perhaps it is appropriate to use air-quotes: "consultant". Perhaps there are some fees available for cleaning up the other mergers referenced in the original post?

Documentation can be important, even for simple actions. This transaction certainly appears to be a rollover (or five). Maybe page 4 of the 1099R instructions, particularly the reference to "non-spouse designated beneficiary", is relevant to the original question? https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099r.pdf

Is this a qualified plan or NQ plan? Governmental? Non-profit?

Is this plan audited? If so, the auditor should have (might have?) opined on this in the past. Be careful to verify your statement, "...has elected not to be subject to ERISA...". I've seen this before, where someone assumed "not elected" but a (very) old election later turned up.

I don't know what this means. Just in case, remember that fraud is a bad thing.

My understanding is: - the estate cannot elect a direct rollover; therefore the 20% default withholding does not apply; - the "other default" withholding will apply:10%; however, the estate has the right to elect zero withholding (just like any other payee, using a W-4P). - use the estate's TIN, probably different from the decedent's SSN and also different from the executor's SSN.

Data as of 07/29/16 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.25 3.25 Aa 3.31 3.40 3.36 A 3.51 3.56 3.54 Baa 4.10 4.23 4.17 Avg 3.64 3.61 3.63 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.88 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.21 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 1.90

How do you (or someone) decide whether "may" applies?

The response might depend on your relationship to the participant. If you are a plan representative, or a record-keeper, or a trustee, it may be appropriate to offer no response, other than "see your tax advisor".

The questioner should bookmark this webpage: https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html

1. I'm just supposing: wouldn't B have to create its own plan (separate from all others) as an interim step? 2. n/a

Just in case, the existence of a collective bargaining unit is not the only relevant condition. See IRC 410(b)(3)(A), and note especially the phrase beginning with "if": (3) Exclusion of certain employees For purposes of this subsection, there shall be excluded from consideration— (A) employees who are included in a unit of employees covered by an agreement which the Secretary of Labor finds to be a collective bargaining agreement between employee representatives and one or more employers, if there is evidence that retirement benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers,...

IMHO, that subsection 1(l) exists only because someone at the IRS was trying be generic, with no understanding of the practicalities. In 35+ years, I've never met an actuary or ERISA attorney who would recommend this "merger". But let's ask a different Q: Is the QRP finalized or still pending? Could the QRP be a DB plan?

Another factor the participant would use in this analysis is current health status and (perhaps) family history. If all the adults in your family died before age 65, then you might not be optimistic about having a long retirement, which means you will choose the lump sum. We call that "anti-selection". It's not random, and it's not "average". Thus, every person's analysis will be different.

I don't have any idea what a judge would do, but in the opinion of this non-lawyer, the ex-spouse is not a plan beneficiary, at least not now, unless the court produces a DRO. In my limited experience, this sounds like "re-opening" a property settlement, which (I understand) is rare.

Go to: https://asc.fasb.org/ Click Login If you do not already have a login, click First Time Users to create your own login. Create your own login. The free version will provide limited access; you can read everything but not print or PDF. After login, the URL should be https://asc.fasb.org/viewpage Then, use the guide on the left side to navigate to anything in the ASC.

Retroactively?

I saw nothing on point in the Gray Book, but (like Effen) did not peruse the regs. The retroactive date appear to precede the effective date of 436. I would probably not use this as valid reasoning to make the payments. Plus, what Effen said.

... if permitted by provisions of the plan(s). So, "unilaterally"? No.

Depends on who you are, and your relationship to the ER and/or the plan. - Is this a DB or DC plan? - Are you the record-keeper? - What does the plan auditor say? - What does your attorney say is your responsibility? - Does your service agreement include your preparation of the 5500 (and have you already been paid for it)? Note the last one: it's possible you are on the hook for 5500 preparation now. (Probably not your responsibility to worry about the audit.)

Question as asked: if you prepare the 1099 and are now told of a correction, issue the correction. You are entitled to be paid for this effort. The service agreement is another matter. Prospectively, you may need some clarity. - Why did you prepare 1099s if your contract is silent? - What does it take to get your contract amended to clearly spell out this responsibility and associated fee? - Can you get someone else to do it in the future?

But, there may be other issues. The plan's actuary is well-qualified to help discuss. As stated by My2Cents in his footer, "Always check with your actuary first."

It needs his signature only if the court wants it. The PA cannot tell the court what to do.

QDRO! He does not need to sign the "prepared QDRO". It's an order of the court, not an order of the two parties. BTW, the plan (technically, the Plan Administrator) will prefer to see a draft order.

At least one court believes that a participant who is incorrectly enriched thru faulty plan administration will automatically become a fiduciary. http://www.plansponsor.com/Court-Finds-Former-Participant-Is-a-Plan-Fiduciary/ Perhaps the PA could find some "leverage" to "encourage" this participant to get this "loan" repaid ASAP. Maybe it's not really a loan.