Mike Preston

No.

Likely? Why?

Ditto.

What he is trying to say is that you are being paranoid.

Yes.

No.

When Lou was talking about reducing the hypothetical account for amounts paid it would have been clearer if he said you reduce the hypothetical account to zero to reflect the fact that a benefit has been started.

You are not listening. Read every message in this thread again.

No.

By satisfying the plan's rules on in-service distributions, whatever they may be.

Confirned.

Right, as usual.

Now that you have clarified, it looks like your best bet is to go back to whoever issued the 1099R with 1L as the code and try to convince them it should have been 1M due to the fact that he was terminated. It should be a simple matter to issue an amended 1099-R once you convince them the existing 1099R is wrong. The tricky part will be convincing them it is wrong.

Anybody catch the error in adku's last statement?

What would cause a 1 or 7 in this circumstance in lieu of 1M or 7M?

I repeat. The original post talked about a deemed distribution. But it also mentioned that there was a termination of employment. That means the o p probably got it wrong. And everybody who is contributed to this thread talking about a deemed distribution is contributing to this nonsense.

Indeed.

Is this situation a situation where only the IRS is at issue?

Gotta keep track of pre and post tax monies, subaccount label is irrelevant.

No. What are you trying to accomplish?

Your emoji's are also tired! Or, they at least appear to be taking a nap. :-)

Literally, she wrote the book.

As long as the beneficiaries of the shortened eligibility are a 410(b) group (like all NHCE's) it should be fine.

If all you are worried about is the IRS don't actuaries have privilege?

You are missing nothing.