david rigby

I think either definition in the original post is possible. Likely, no one can definitively answer your question without the actual plan language (or maybe the SPD). If neither is available (and you should not assume the answer is NO without some realistic investigation), the next step might be to ask if there is any precedent. If that fails, you may default to the ERISA principal of deciding ambiguous questions in favor of the participant.

Dividends are dividends. See post #2. If LT and/or ST capital gain from mutual funds, it should be included in 2b(10). If LT and/or ST capital gain from something other than mutual funds, it should be included on the appropriate line, such as 2b(4), or 2b(6), or 2b(7), etc. In general, LT and/or ST capital gain is realized appreciation. It should not be included in the unrealized appreciation of 2b(5).

No expert am I. Since the trust is the entity that (eventually) makes a payment (and possibly does tax withholding), shouldn't it have a unique EIN/TN? A 1099-R makes more sense if it shows the name and EIN of the payor, rather than the plan sponsor or the bank that holds the money, etc.

I think the sponsor must first address the second and third "If..." sentences in Post #2, in light of what was intended. My reference to "prospective" is that the sponsor should then amend the plan to incorporate the intent, for any future new hires.

.... but the document might not say what was intended, in which case the principal(s) should consider a prospective amendment to clear up the confusion.

In my observation, it's likely the only detail communicated is the size of the PS contribution.

If we assume the attorney(s) have ruled out any possibility that this EE is not a "specified employee", the comment above from jpod is good advice. If the ER elects to increase the ER's comp by $75K, that (probably) won't have any impact on the SERP itself, which leads to the possibility that the ER might have to pay it twice.

Does the plan document allow Plan Administrator discretion to exclude HCEs? In other words, follow the document. If necessary, amend it.

I have no idea about the "for and against", but the word "persuades" stands out like a sore thumb. Who determines? Open to abuse? What if A persuades B, while simultaneously B persuades A? Any requirement that the "persuader" already be making contributions? What if a contributing EE stops, and one month later is "persuaded" to start again? And again?

Prior discussion here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/52072-2011-contribution-deadline-91512-or-91712/ ..but let's not beat that dead horse again.

Get the boss of the "HR person" on the phone, and say the words "fiduciary violation" slowly and clearly.

Does not affect the April 15 due date for DB quarterly contributions, if applicable, although there has been a heated debate about this, on one of the Message Boards.

Cite: https://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-50_IRB/ar05.html. Reg. 1.430(d)-1(f)(4). Published in the Federal Register 10/15/09. It can be easy to misread the exact cite of sections/subsections/paragraphs/subparagraphs, so I might have made a mistake. You can search for the phrase, "probability of benefit payments..."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/409A See 409A(a)(2)(A) Distributions, In general... Note after subsection (v), the word "or" This is modified by subsection (a)(2)(B(i), which deals with "Specified Employees".

Link to 03/31/16 Federal Register: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-03-31/pdf/2016-07217.pdf

It seems this depends entirely on the terms of the SERP. Just because he is 65, there is no requirement that the ER stop employing him. If so, then he can continue 401k contributions the same as any other Employee. But, since you say "executive", check the terms of the employment agreement, if any.

Data as of 03/31/2016 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.72 3.72 Aa 3.81 3.73 3.77 A 4.05 4.01 4.03 Baa 4.89 4.91 4.90 Avg 4.25 4.09 4.17 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.08 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.50 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.32

Seriously. Why isn't the plan sponsor asking the CPA?

Our IT folks have multiple such scans, for emails both directions. They are network-based, not "Outlook add-ins", since IT would not trust that level of review.

It might be the "mailbox rule". Was it e-sent or postmarked by X date?

Changing the name of the plan is (usually) accomplished via plan amendment. So, the governing authority can amend the plan to change the name any time it desires. However, your question might be related to the "inner workings" of the EFAST system.

Unless the CPA is also an attorney, it's time to get a real attorney involved.

Who is the authority to adopt or amend the plan? If it's the BOD, it might not be important for any Trustees to sign.

Again, because they won't correspond with you, it's possible they don't have (or haven't approved) the draft DRO as being a valid QDRO (does NOT matter if the court signed it, since the company must review it for compliance with the plan itself). Now, you state there has been a change of corporate structure/merger, etc. This is another reason for you to be skeptical that the company has the information. Send it again, with a polite cover letter that the original may never have been received/filed/approved. Keep copies of what you sent. Date everything. Important: if the draft is approved or not, they will tell you. If you have never received any confirmation, you should be very skeptical that the process has been completed.

Caesar was killed one day after eating some Pi.