david rigby

While you may be "exclusively with DC plans", at some point you need to ask, "Is there another plan?" and "Is there a DB plan?"

IRS Reg specifically states that a pre-nup does not affect the selection of beneficiary. I think it is: Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A28. Very likely, the plan already answers the original question.

Great advice above. Please allow me to summarize: Get competent legal counsel! P.S. "competent" will probably include "M&A experience". That counsel will probably be hired by A or B or C, likely not by you. P.P.S "We" is used in the original post; make sure you are clear with counsel what that means.

In context, "add people" appears to mean more than "hire someone". If the co-op hires an employee, that will differ from the co-op adding a new owner-employee. Caution with terminology.

Very likely, the Plan will consider this as two separate events (who wouldn't?). In such case, the marriage event causes an automatic change of beneficiary to the spouse. The divorce might (check the plan document) automatically invalidate the beneficiary designation, but such provision is not required. Do two things: (1) read the document, and (2) get the participant to submit a new beneficiary form. Don't look for ways to cut corners, esp when the solution is so simple.

Pissed off employees? If the proposed change is to save some admin fees, the ER should be honest and transparent about it.

What does "hold it" mean? IRAs? Something else?

Any written service agreement(s) that might help?

Does the Trustee have any authority to "freeze" the assets? And exactly what is meant by "freeze"? Does any participant have a right to reallocate his/her investment decisions now? Does the Plan contain any language that might, automatically, terminate the plan due to bankruptcy filing? The original post states "in bankruptcy". Does that mean any formal filings have been made? or just expected?

Not sure of the details: is there a statute that permits a congress to overrule any regulation that was adopted within X months prior to that Congress beginning? My best recollection is that happened in 2017.

Follow-up to post above from @Paul I. The text of Rev. Ruling 2019-19 is here: https://www.irs.gov/irb/2019-36_IRB#REV-RUL-2019-19

IMHO, it would be hasty to assume "clerical error".

Don't overlook how "stretched" payments might affect the FICA tax due.

Have you confirmed that the missing ex-employee is still alive? Be creative in how you search.

Insufficient information. Rather than post your (probably) personal details, the best suggestion is to engage an attorney who is familiar with such distribution(s). (Not all divorce attorneys fit that description.) Make sure that person is familiar with QDROs and also with whatever plan(s) cover CPD* employees. Most federal rules pertaining to a "Qualified Domestic Relations Order" do not apply to plans sponsored by a governmental organization, but the plan itself may have adopted similar procedures. *Might be Chicago Police Department or Charlotte Police Department or Cincinnati Police Department, or maybe something else?

What does this mean?

Just speculating, the comment from @Effen might be the source of your "greater than". Also, having two actuaries opine on a contribution implies a change of actuary (?), so maybe there are some census data questions to address.

Correct. In such a case, a prudent PA would approve the qualification with the condition that the amount payable cannot exceed the amount available; the PA might (probably?) require the draft DRO be amended to include that phrasing. Otherwise, the PA does not care how much is awarded to the AP.

For anyone interested, here is the link to the 2004 Blue Book. https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/docs/2004bluebook.pdf The discussion in Q&A2 begins with a reference to the 2002 Blue Book: https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/docs/2002bluebook.pdf

The comments from @fmsinc, relating to making sure your plan is covered, are important. However, many non-ERISA plans include (within the plan document) provisions that are similar to the ERISA-required QDRO language. If your plan is non-ERISA, you should still identify the relevant plan provisions.

IF the plan contains restrictions such as those mentioned by @Peter Gulia, and IF the plan does not want those restrictions, then the plan sponsor should consider amending the plan document, sooner rather than later.

Can we assume nothing in the plan, or any other documents, includes (or maybe implies) "per stirpes"? IMHO, the plan does not need to state that this; it should be self-evident that beneficiaries of a "certain and life" payment form are entitled to name their own beneficiary. The plan does not care who, since it has promised to pay X number of payments.

Seems like pretty good comments (not legal advice 😄) from @Peter Gulia. Another course of action might be to ask the accounting firm directly. At the risk of sounding like a broken record (you youngsters can look up what that means), in addition to reading the statute, you may find some useful information by searching these Message Boards for prior discussions. I suggest a search term of "4980" or "replacement".

Non-lawyer opinion follows: Since the original question said nothing about a spouse, it appears we are to assume "not married" and "no QDRO". Just trying to be thorough. This might be because the deceased has debts greater than assets, although that is (probably) not a concern of the Plan. I've encountered a few cases where the death benefit went to an estate; it seems likely (to me) that the Plan Administrator's best position is to follow the plan definitions precisely. But it should open the discussion as to whether the plan can be amended for more flexibility, going forward. For example, many plans use a definition that includes (after spouse), the deceased's lineal descendants and ascendants, followed by "the estate"; is there a problem of amending the definition to include siblings?

Is there any substantive difference between this and the information on Form 8955-SSA? Would the DOL (and plan sponsors) be better served by having the IRS provide the Form information to the DOL at the same time as providing it to the SSA? (OK, maybe that requires a statutory change, but you get my point.)