david rigby

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.

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.