AndyH

I can tell you that many large companies allow this in their plans. I happen to be in one that does, and before that I was in another one that did. Could there be a different interpretation for a solo plan?

There are no differences in this MRD rule; My 2 cents states the requirements correctly.

I recall this being the DC context. I believe the EOB used to have a further statement to the effect that the answer within the context of a DB plan is less clear. Maybe that has been removed? (This is from memory from researching this several years ago).

I don't think there is a clear answer in print on this. I side with once a participant always a participant for this purpose but others disagree. Suggest reviewing the EOB.

But then he may incur tax issues if he has pre-tax IRAs. Instead he can do an in-plan Roth conversion if the plan document permits and avoid those tax consequences.

A coverage ratio of 0% for 2017.

Should this be 1.401(a)(4)-5? I think my point is moot anyways, since there does not appear to be any special "year of plan termination" rule in the nondiscrimination or coverage regulations. So yes there is a numerical testing issue if the plan year is calendar. If the plan year ends 6/30/2017, -5 could possibly be a question raised by the IRS.

Does the testing year include post-termination time or is the employee ineligible for the year? (I don't know the answer off hand). But even if the employee can be excluded on the basis of failing to complete the minimum service or age, the timing of the amendment presents a potential discrimination issue itself, which is a facts and circumstanced determination. I don't see how you pass that.

If you look at section 411(a)(8) in the IRC, it says that the latest NRA is the fifth anniversary of participation (or age 65 if later), so I don't think that 5 years of participation, if later, is permitted.

For ASPPA, a member can simply login and look for webcasts on demand and one of them says free; just follow the prompts. I assume this is forASPPA members only but I'm not sure http://www.asppa.org/Education/Webcasts/Details/ArticleID/6621/Complimentary-ASPPA-Webcast-Using-Your-Brain-to-Win

There is one free webcast available from ASPPA on-demand. Just 1 credit though.

Isn't that what I said?

Effen, Congratulations, I'm not sure I remember Mike calling anybody else's comments aggressive!

From what you have described, the employees who benefit are doing so because the employer has identified them as being in Division X. If this is true, I would view this as being a reasonable classification under 1.410(b)-4. Just one opinion. This is a facts and circumstances determination. ps I would not deviate from that division criteria by one person.

Not that he needs it, but I second Tom's comments. I don't see an issue.

And my recollection (just check this) is that the entire distributable lump sum gets divided by the 26.5, not just the 1/1/2016 PVAB.

http://www.cyberisa.com/consulting.html

I've never seen or heard consideration of a second plan in determining the threshold. And this includes public and private plans.

Truth be told all prior filings should be amended forthwith.

On this latter subject, are we saying that any spousal beneficiary, for example, of a retiree who took a 10 C&C and died within the certain period can roll over all their payments, even if they are paid monthly? Or just if the payments were converted to a lump sum?

I have a variation of the old question started eons ago. Sponsor wants to give DB participants choice of opting out of existing DB plan and into DC plan. Do the people who opt to stay in the DB plan constitute a reasonable classification for 410(b) purposes? Has anyone obtained a ruling on this issue?

Agree with jpod

Misuse of this type of provision can (does) add to underfunding/added withdrawal liability/litigation etc, all the more reason to involve legal counsel IMHO.

Separate but good points on 2. Not sure if those are issues or not but we'll look. On the basic question, I think this is analogous to restructuring the plan into to component plans that have different ERFs. We believe that each component will pass 410(b). 1.401(a)(4)-3(f)(4) touches upon this, but it's not easy reading.

Sponsor of a frozen plan wants to temporarily add 5 years of age to the calculation of retirement benefits for a division. Is this merely a BRF test or does this need the general 401(a)(4) test?