david rigby

Um, just what do you mean by "3% match"?

Note that this IRC section is the definition of "participating service", not accrual (or benefit) service.

Is your recordkeeper also your auditor? A "preparer" of the 5500 does not own the form or (more importantly) the filing itself. The "owner" of the 5500 and its accompanying financial statement is the Plan Administrator. Therefore, such decisions are in the wheelhouse (technical term) of the PA.

Page 14 (link in Post #1) includes the following:

By all means, if you can borrow at 5.5% and get a guaranteed return of 10%, do it. There are no risks: - lose your job? No risk there. - default of your family member's business? No risk there. - mis-estimate of your 10% return assumption? No risk there. - loss of diversification in your investments? No risk there. - risk of family alienation? No risk there.

Data as of 06/30/2016 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.39 3.39 Aa 3.43 3.56 3.50 A 3.68 3.71 3.70 Baa 4.36 4.45 4.41 Avg 3.82 3.78 3.80 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.85 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.22 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 1.99

Mike is correct, something similar occurs often in various types of acquisitions/purchase. Is everyone an NHCE? Could the addition of these new eligibles make testing more difficult?

The original post did not say the participants have severed employment, but it appears posts 2 and 3 may have assumed terminated. Be sure to follow the plan document with respect to a distributable event.

It may be advisable to note that "plan administrator" means (or should mean) the Plan Administrator (capital letters are important here) as defined in the plan document and/or adoption agreement. It does not mean the TPA, although there is nothing wrong with the TPA being included in the discussion.

Amend plan A to give 100% vesting to this non-HCE? Amend plan B to waive any participation requirement for this non-HCE? Would it be useful if both A and B adopt the same plan?

That's how I remember it. Don't forget: the mandatory EE contributions were after-tax, so they come out non-taxable, but any allocation of excess assets will not be after-tax.

... and the plan Administrator should share those QDRO procedures, if you want to see a copy. It may be reasonable for you/your attorney to inquire whether her death will automatically remove the "freeze". But of course, I'm not giving legal advice.

Could the chosen date be related to IRC 410(b)(6)? By the way, the IRS opined on a similar topic in the Gray Book: QUESTION #1997-38 A plan sponsor intends to merge two calendar year plans. To avoid filing a short plan year Form 5500 for either plan, should the merger date be December 31or January 1? RESPONSE The merger documents should include language describing the transaction as taking effect at a time such as "as of the beginning of the plan year" or "as of the end of the plan year." As long as the intention is clear, the IRS should not question a date of either December 31 or January 1 on Form 5500 or on Form 5310-A.

1. Not yet universal, "exit fees" are becoming more common. Not disagreeing with Andy, it also may be possible the plan sponsor can negotiate this fee. IMHO, $500 for each plan might be unreasonable. 2. "Ransom" is a pretty strong word. Subject to any possible service agreement (written or implied), it is reasonable for the actuary to ask for a fee, primarily because the actuary consolidated and "cleaned up" (we assume) the data from prior years. Having consolidated data is significantly different from having copies of the original data from each prior year. BTW, the same issue sometimes arises with respect to a 5500. It is likely you (the "new" actuary) don't really know what was "disclosed to the client." 3. Not much you can do about the lack of professional courtesy, short of asking the other guy to re-read Precept 10 of the Code. http://www.actuary.org/content/code-professional-conduct. You can always ask for guidance from the ASB. BTW, there have been multiple sessions on this topic at various Enrolled Actuary Meetings.

A QDRO is an order of the court, with specific requirements under ERISA. Probably, the court can change it's own order, but there may be a deadline by which such change is irrelevant. Assuming the Plan was not notified of a revised QDRO before completion of the transfer, it's possible that deadline has passed.

Just my opinion, if the plan followed it's rules and completed the transfer to AP, then there is nothing else to do. It seems unlikely the participant and AP can simply "request" a change to the QDRO.

While reviewing the Manhart case, it is recommended that you also review the "Norris" case (1983? 1988?). BTW, both were governmental plans.

Line 6a of the 5500 was modified for 2014. It's also mentioned on page 1 of the 2014 instructions. https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html

Highly recommended that the original poster should not care about: - the debts of estate, or - the reason the son may want to disclaim, or - what the estate tax structure is, or - etc. These are of no concern to the plan sponsor, to the TPA, etc. Rather, advice to the son (who just might be the only person to whom the plan sponsor can direct any comments) should be to relate the provisions of the plan: the plan states the benefit goes to X, etc. Let the son and/or the estate gets its own legal advice.

I'll bite. Why is response "legally required"?

There is lots wrong with it. Grammar, punctuation, possibly spelling, probably one or more omitted words, all of which leads me to caution.

I hope that is not an exact quote. Is there a plan merger somewhere in this? What does the plan's attorney say?

Perhaps your client has fallen victim to a scam. Or, a "helpful" brother-in-law.

It depends. If the VT's previously reported, then report with code D. If not previously reported, ignore them.

ERISA Outline Book. Author is Sal Tripodi.