Mike Preston

It is. Same to you!

Sure does sound like he's been an employee all along. Doesn't that answer all of your questions?

He gets the greater of 2% or gateway. Remember the gateway is reduced by cash balance pay credit. Not dollar for dollar but actuarially. Also remember that the gateway offset can be based on each individual's pay credit or the average. As far as an 11g amendment is concerned some documents have an exception just for gateway and therefore no amendment would be necessary.

In general, I shy away from posts which are internally inconsistent. You ask a question in the form of a or b and then you say yes. Very difficult to figure out what to say without going into great detail. Perhaps break it down and ask simpler questions?

Both are allowable.

I doubt he is a non-resident alien. If so we wouldn't be having this discussion. The exclusion seems reasonable to me. He will still count against you for 410b purposes, but the average benefits test should still be available.

Usually systems such as benefits link will allow for changing the email address of currently mailed email. The login name/email address is fixed.

I would be flabbergasted if the document doesn't provide for a single valuation date of the last day of the plan year. In this case valuation date equals allocation date. That does not scuttle the approach in any way shape or form.

As long as the timing of contributions is not per se discriminatory I see no problems. Yes you don't want to have any contributions made during the year which exceed 415 limits but that's easily manageable. I disagree with the thought above that you can remove excess contributions without violating 411 d6. The only time you remove excess contributions is when there's a 415 violation.

I ignored the qta concept completely. It has been my experience that they are like unicorns. Theoretically they exist but darn if you can find one in the wild. I was talking about the receiver.

You have come to the wrong place. The people who can answer these questions are those that operate as what you have just called the receiver. They know the jurisdiction and they know how the contingent liability if any is to be satisfied.

It depends on whether you think the s in withdrawals has significance or not.

Not to mention a 5-year waiting period Which violates everything under the sun.

You absolutely need an attorney. The sooner you recognize that and act accordingly the better off you'll be. From where I sit, it looks like your side fumbled the football sometime after January 2010 when no follow-up was made to ensure the qdro was approved. An attorney will vociferously argue that the almost approved qdro rejection letter gave a clear path to approval of the January 2010 document. Then you need to Hope that somebody will recognize receipt of the document you sent certified mail. There are many twists and turns that this could take so please get to an attorney as soon as possible.

Why do you have concerns about sending out a copy of the advisory letter? It's kind of public information isn't it?

Then your first thought is correct.

Have either of the k1 entities adopted the plan?

What does the document say?

Boy, am I on a different planet from either of you. If you look long and hard you will find that there are already existing rules that tie the 52/53 week plan year to, essentially, the calendar year that it just makes sense to use. So, there will be one 5500 for each calendar year (showing the beginning of the "plan year" as 1/1 and the end as 12/31). Then the actual period over which the assets and transactions are determined is from the beginning of the 52/53 week year to the end of the 52/53 week year. Simple, huh?

Yes.

What is a B plan?

Why can't you use a 412 D2 election? That should allow the 1 1 valuation to come up with zero cost.

This.

Perfectly acceptable.

Dates are confusing. How many short plan years are there?