david rigby

The reference to "$8/month" should have pointed out (my assumption) that the insurer will sell the annuity only on an immediate basis, so the monthly benefit will reflect some type of early commencement.

Your message is so rambling and lacking in punctuation, good grammar, and proper spelling that I have no idea what point(s) you are trying to make. I have no idea why you referenced Aaron Swartz, John McCain, or Granny D. But perhaps it's just me. There is an edit button available if you want to revise your post. Or you can ignore this if you choose.

No automatic rollover is not an option. Inform the participant that the plan must distribute her benefit. If she fails to make an election, the plan will make the election for her, and that is an annuity payable in the normal form (or J&S if applicable). As mentioned by JAY21, it may be difficult to purchase that annuity (but you don't have to tell the participant). When she finds out that her benefit will be $8/month for the rest of her life, maybe she will sign the form.

Changing the name of the company is not the same as changing the name of the plan. Likely, a plan name is accomplished via plan amendment.

Ask company attorney and/or accountant if they have a copy?

Agree. The best reference is the last paragraph immediately prior to the heading "HOLDINGS", on page 9 of the IRB from August 11, 2003. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb03-32.pdf BTW, there is nothing recent in the Gray Book on point. IMHO, this is because Rev. Ruling 2003-85 is not ambiguous. - There is an older Q&A (Gray Book, 98-33) that states amounts transferred above the 25% threshold will receive the 20% excise tax rate. The exact Answer is "Any transferred amount in excess of 25% would be taxed as a reversion at the 20% excise tax rate." - My recollection (I attended the 1998 Enrolled Actuaries Meeting when the Gray Book was first discussed) is that this Q&A created significant controversy; i.e., "that's a ridiculous result". Such controversy (I think) was the impetus for the IRS to rethink its position, eventually leading to Rev. Rul. 2003-85.

... and if the plan is not clear, it's time to make sure it's amended.

Good grief. Why not just amend the plan to make it clear (at least prospectively)?

Neither 411 nor 417 will have any effect on a NQ plan's requirement w/r/t spousal consent. Neither will inhibit the plan in including or excluding or changing such provision. The plan itself might include a provision that could affect (yes, that is the correct word) the ability to change any such provision.

BTW, this discussion points out the inconsistencies in this area. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/52072-2011-contribution-deadline-91512-or-91712/?hl=holiday#entry225396

It isn't the deduction that is relevant, since $$ coming out of the plan will come back into his income. It's the permanent exemption from FICA tax. (But hey, I'm not giving tax advice.)

BTW, it may be useful to re-read IRC 4980 to make sure no special conditions apply (eg, bankruptcy). If the one-man company can establish a DC plan to receive the excess, that may eliminate the excise tax entirely. See also Rev. Ruling 2003-85. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb03-32.pdf

A few prior similar discussion threads. Try the Search feature. My recollection is that the IRS permits the "next business day" rule for a filing (eg, form 1040 or form 5500), but it does not apply to other due dates.

Increase benefit, up to 415 limit? Cover someone else (perhaps spouse)? I forget: is there any reason why you can't have a one-person qualifed replacement plan?

The due date for the SSA is triggered by the 5500, but that does not make it part of the 5500. File it.

Data as of 31-JUL-14 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.15 4.15 Aa 4.15 4.21 4.18 A 4.21 4.34 4.28 Baa 4.69 4.81 4.75 Avg 4.35 4.38 4.37 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.30 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.04 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.04

Follow the terms of the plan, which probably does not anticipate a second election, for anyone. However, if the governing authority (maybe the corporate Board of Directors, for example) wants to permit a new election, such election can be created via plan amendment. The plan should seek advice from ERISA counsel on how (or whether) to do this (discrimination? precedent?, etc.)

Agree. As long as the 415 limit is not violated, the simplest action is to amend the plan to increase benefits, thus "using up" the excess.

Don't forget to read IRC 411(e)(2).

Perhaps legal counsel can provide a description of where to "find the language"?

Are you saying the 5500 was filed with a non-zero asset but it really was zero?

Consider that the counting of hours for IRC 410 and 411 was put in ERISA precisely to avoid this situation.

Somewhat oversimplified: Non-discrimination regs permit discrimination against, or among, HCEs. But check the plan document to verify that it does not have any conflicting provisions.

While address and SSN are required information, putting them in a public document like a QDRO is an unwise action. It's pretty simple to communicate that information in a letter. Everyone deserves privacy.

Is there anything in the plan that might interfere with the naming of a non-natural person as beneficiary?