Mike Preston

They must be aggregated for TH purposes only if (A) or (B) and, in this case, neither is applicable.* Since they don't need to be aggregated, and the plan with just NHCE's can't be TH, TH minimum for those NHCE's doesn't apply. If they were 401(k) plans and satisfied 410(b) separately, then there is no required aggregation for ADP purposes. * A=There is at least one Key employee participating in each plan. B=The plan with the Key employee depends upon the other plan to satisfy 401(a)(4) (where for purposes of this rule, you do not consider the ABPT, if needed, as a test which establishes the plan's dependence upon the other plan).

You need to do something to get her to escalate the issue to somebody who knows what they are doing. See Belgareth's post. Perhaps a response something like the following: "Thank you for your email. I would like to formally request that you take a different action than what you have proposed. Instead, I would like to suggest that you not withhold any more until my new 20% election makes up for the amount that was overwithheld. That is, until such time as 20% of my pay under the new election equals the amount that was overwithheld, nothing further will be withheld. Please consider this request as a formal claim for benefits under the Plan." Optionally, you could include a numerical example, but that might be overkill at this point.

"Probably" more?

Agreed as to RBG. I can't imagine not being required to provide a 402(f). You haven't specified what form is being mandated, but if it is taxable then, at the very least, the 402(f) identifies the ability to roll over within 60 days. And even if not taxable, if over $5,000 then the plan has to extend the right to allow the monies to remain in the plan (even if the flat dollar pay out would seem to be a steep price to pay).

Somewhat hard? I think your example of a funding target of $15x and ultimate plan liabilities of $35x would be very, very difficult to reproduce in the wild.

BG, *you* were clear, but there are others that are seemingly reinforcing the position that something doesn't satisfy 414(p) so my question is to everybody, not just you.

You aren't going to like this answer, but there is so much that you have written that needs unscrambling that the best response is that you need to engage a CPA to prepare the W-2 on behalf of your corporation. To start the unscrambling, be aware that it was required to be completed months ago (January 31, I think). Maybe somebody else has the time to go into more detail, but since you are going to need an accountant before all is said and done, there isn't much purpose to doing that.

What about 404(o)(5)?

"I may not be a lawyer but I am assisting the Plan Administrator in this matter. If I advise the Plan Administrator to reject the DRO then, at the least, you will most likely need to file a formal claim for reconsideration. Hence, it is in your client's best interest for you to ratchet down the rhetoric and help me help your client."

I don't understand why anybody thinks the DRO as drafted is a problem. What provision of 414(p) does it fail? Just because you and I would argue for an earnings component doesn't mean that there must be one. And restricting the otherwise available options doesn't violate the rule that precludes authorizing a benefit that is otherwise not payable, does it?

Should????? Can you describe a circumstance where it wouldn't be?

We will do better than that. In the absence of a convincing argument to the contrary, I suggest that a moderator will delete this thread before Monday.

Is the second distribution eligible for force out?

Uh-oh, maybe pointing to the PBGC wasn't the best thing to do if it really is a governmental plan.

Yes. If you send an email to Janet Mak, she will pass it along to one of their many EPCRS agents who will respond. I've gone so far as to request a phone call in the email and, to my pleasant surprise, I've gotten a phone call in response! Janet publishes her email address on many of the IRS webcasts which I believe are available on the IRS website, so I'm not giving anything away that she hasn't already given: janet.mak@irs.gov

Your post is a mixture of VCP, SCP and VFCP. For the small amount involved I would suggest to the client that the research to determine barely adequate compliance will cost much more than the most generous restorative payments and excise tax filings.

I moved it.

I don't think your analysis is nearly deep enough. What about suggesting the client check with labor counsel and get back to you?

Exempt

The 945 is to report activity of a specific EIN. I can't tell whether what you are doing is right or wrong, but in either event the 945 should be for the single EIN and therefore a single 945. Unless somebody tells you your single EIN is being used improperly, in which case all bets are off.

You should contact the PBGC. From their website: Send email to: mypension@pbgc.gov You can email us any day, 24/7. We will acknowledge receipt and get back to you with an answer within three business days. Or you can call us Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 7 p.m. ET (except federal holidays). 1-800-400-7242

You are confusing outside limits with inside limits.

The life annuity DB minimum will typically be 30%-40% higher than the account balance method. It is not a "bad" idea to shift RMD's from DB to IRA's and draining the DB benefit is certainly one way to go. However, it has been my experience that many owners have legit reasons to prefer qualified plans to IRA's (real estate investments, lower fees for hard to value assets, concern that the MASD rules will cause a significant reduction to the client's overall 415 limit, etc.). However, in my neck of the woods it is most common to add a certain period with 4.99% escalator as a distribution option. This will typically result in an RMD that is between 1% to 4% higher than the account balance method while retaining all of the assets within the qualified plan.

It is unclear whether Tom is citing things that are required in all cases or whether things are cited because they happen to apply in this case.....so, with respect to: "plans pass without the need for the avg ben pct test" How does the analysis change if the quoted text becomes: "db plan passes 410(b) only because the avg ben pct test is satisfied" [increase total employees to 8 by adding 1 NHCE not participating in DB plan] ?

I think he meant 401(a)(4), but Tom will no doubt clarify.