Lou S.

Process the RMD. Process the rollover. Tell her to discuss tax implications with her accountant. Unless you are also her accountant, in which case, good luck.

Disagree. If she retires in 2019 she has an RMD from the Plan for 2019 which is supposed to be the first monies taken from the Plan and that RMD piece is not eligible for rollover. My understanding is that the Plan should issue one 1099-R for the RMD and one for the balance of the Rollover with instructions to the participant to remove the RMD piece from the IRA as an excess IRA contribution that was not eligible for rollover. But as you say it is late on a Friday so my explanation may or not make logical sense.

Yes you lose the "get out of TH free card" so you need to satisfy TH minimum.

Deferrals had to come from his W-2 wages and be reflected on his W-2.

I believe it is something that can be done. I think you need to test it as a BRF. That said, I think it would take a strange set of facts for this amendment to fail BRF in a large plan because I would think that most of the folks who are getting additional years of service for vesting hours between 250 - 999 would in most cases be non-highly compensated employees. I'm sure there are some fact patterns where such an amendment would be discriminatory but I think in most cases it would pass muster. But I think you'd have to run the numbers and look at the demographics.

The new provider may not have gotten accurate vesting information or may not have loaded it on their system yet. This may be a simple fix. Call the Plan Administrator, probably your old employer, tell them you'd like to receive a distribution and request whatever paperwork you need to complete. Tell them you beleive your are 100% vested but the new record keeper does not reflect this. If you have old statements showing 100% vesting that would be helpful but not required. If you worked there 12 years, it's hard to believe you are not 100% vested though there are some unusually situations where this might be the case but not if you were previously 100% vested. Vesting information should be your summary plan description, if you can't locate your copy, request another.

I would ask the ERISA Plan Administrator (usually the Plan Sponsor in same plans) to clarify the method they would like to use. Then document it for future administrative consistency.

Some Sponsors will balk at any fees so yes a restatement charge at termination might get some blow back on fees.

Was company A sold in an Asset sale or a Stock sale?

I've asked several questions about top-heavy to the IRS over the years in mergers and acquisitions rarely if every got a satisfactory response. that said the plan is continuing as an ongoing concern so for the Plan Year the participants were Key-Employees for part of the year. I think their ownership ends on the date they sell but I believe they are key-employees in the year sold and the year following then former key employees in future years. I think the result is different if the Plan of the old company was terminated and the new company started a new 401(k) plan. That said Luke, you are right the regs on TH as it relates to mergers and acquisitions in essentially non exhisitant. So I admit the IRS position could be different.

Send him a cashier's check by registered mail?

I don't think you've missed anything.

Immaterial data errors corrected in next valuation?

Does plan use hours of service or elapsed time for eligibility? Are you sure Spouse never had a year of service prior to this year? Can you return the spouse deferral and forfeit match under EPCRS for 2018? If you amend the plan to bring her in, how many other short service employees would that bring in? and what kind of QNEC would be required for them? can that QNEC be used to satisfy TH min? If Plan is TH - any non key eligible will be eligible for TH min.

Was the distribution eligible for rollover? If yes and it is not rolled over mandatory withholding rules apply.

A work around might be to have him reduce his 401(k) contribution to a level where the 401(k) + safe harbor match = the total amount he wants to contribute.

You could offer to resign and let the accountant take over plan administration since he fancy's himself an expert in the field.

You may need an ERISA attorney involved. But it sounds like the Plan Administrator (PA) incorrectly paid the APs portion of benefits assigned by the QDRO to the Participant. The PA would likely be on hook for making the AP whole and then trying to recover the over payment to the Participant on behalf of the Plan.

I believe we started electronic filing in 1998. So several of the recent early 2000 filings were definitely electronic but before they were on FIRE. But don't know if they were EFAST1 or EFAST2. I can't recall any since the newer separate form filed through FIRE but older stuff does come up for sure. Anything before that was paper. We had one participant from the 90s still question us when we sent her a copy of the 1099-R and her notarize election form. We happened to have all of it scanned.

SSA is not always the best at removing folks, even when reported with a D code, especially if the D code was reported long ago. The last 4 participants to call our office with one of those SSA letters where all reported as D on the SSA in the year they were paid out.

I think I misunderstood the nature of the original question. But as a followup is the ER plan that covers the union employees considered covered under a collective bargaining agreement? If yes can you take advantage of IRS regs that allow you to aggregate all your union plans and do a single test? I think the applicable reg is IRC 1.401(k)-1(g)(11)(ii)(B). But I don't know if this would make your situation better or worse.

I believe you are supposed to run two test in this case. One that covers just non-union employees and one that covers only union employees. I'm pretty sure the union and non-union employees must be disaggregated for ADP and ACP testing. I believe that the union portion gets a free pass on ACP but not ADP. Though there might be rules that allow you to aggregate the two populations. However it's been some time since I looked at the rules for plans covering both Union and Non-Union because employees we don't currently administer any like this.

Have any of the other restricted partners requested a lump sum and been denied?

True. The TH minimum need only be the lesser of 3% or the greatest allocation rate of any key employee. That said a 2nd year 401(k) plan where you tell the keys oh by the way none of your can contribute is not likely to be a Plan that is around for long. And there are some instances where you might make a 2018 TH contribution to Non-Keys only which is sufficient to make the Plan not Top Heavy for 2019.

I'm assuming you have a calendar year plan established in 2018? For which the determination date for both the 2018 and 2019 plan year is 12/31/2018. If your top heavy ratio is more than 60% on 12/31/18 you have a top-heavy minimum required for 2018 (which will most likely be deposited in 2019) and for 2019 which will likely be deposited in 2020.