RatherBeGolfing

I don't think we were given the facts that this happened "long ago", just that the divorce was a couple of years back and that the plan did not receive a QDRO at the time. Either way, the death of a participant would not make a subsequent order fail to be qualified. The facts are slightly different but the end result is the same

If it was one of my plans, we would have given the participant the RMD information even if they wanted to do a total lumpsum distribution. We would also do the calculation for them if they asked down the road. We have the data, the knowledge, and the software to do it. It would just be bad customer service to tell a former participant that they are on their own simply because they decided on a 100% distribution a few months ago. I don't see a reason why the participant couldn't choose at that point. It is no longer a plan issue, it is a taxpayer and possibly IRA issue if RMD assets are improperly rolled into the IRA...

True, but failure to make the correct RMD is a plan qualification issue, and the DOL is currently taking a hard look at RMDs as well. So failure to distribute at least the minimum is more than a taxpayer problem.

Im not sure I see the problem with the post death QDRO in this case. It would have been better if it had been done timely, but if the QDRO simply provides the plan with the documentation to carry out what was settled during the divorce, what is the controversy? Its not like the surviving spouse already started drawing a benefit or an annuity was purchased, the assets are still in the plan. The only real questions seem to be Can they delay a distribution request from surviving spouse without getting the actual QDRO How long can they delay a distribution request from surviving spouse without getting the actual QDRO If they actually receive a QDRO from ex-spouse, it seems pretty clear she is entitled to what the court said she was entitled to, and the surviving spouse is entitled to whatever the court said participant was entitled to. Or do you see an issue Im overlooking?

The "fix" to the PPA document could be done two ways, you would redo the document completely, or add a snap on. Again, this would be an amendment to the PPA document, not EGTRRA.

From the amount of taxes (100k+), sounds like you should be a semiweekly depositor. You will have to look up the exact schedule, but you only have a few days to make the deposit. Look at publication 15 section 10 or 11 for the explanation. Its referenced in the 945 instructions and have been for as long as I can remember.

The schedule should be either monthly or semiweekly. Monthly is due by the 15th of the month following, and semiweekly is a few days following the distribution, depending on the day the distribution is made. When you say immediately, does that mean the same day, day after, week after?

Could be, but it would be a snap on to the PPA restated AA, effective 1/1/16.

FTW has several PPA restated documents. When was the "snap on" executed?

What if.... The ex-wife submits the divorce decree as a QDRO. It is not a QDRO, but the PA still has to determine that it isn't a QDRO, and notify all the parties and all that fun stuff. While the PA is determining that it is not a QDRO, the actual QDRO can be submitted. If you are going to deny the surviving spouse distribution, this at least creates a reason for the PA to not immediately distribute the assets which is better than "we were told they were working on a QDRO"

I think the short answer is yes it can, but like @QDROphile says, it really depends on whether the division of assets in the divorce created a right to the ex-spouse. Even if the plan pays the full balance to the surviving spouse before receipt of the QDRO, it would be a civil matter between the ex spouse and surviving spouse. I don't see how it is any different than one spouse taking a full distribution after the division of assets but before the plan was served with a QDRO. They are taking something they know they no longer have a legal right to, even if the plan has not yet been put on notice.

From the OP...

What Lou said.

Ok, since you didn't distribute the assets in 2017, no final form 5500-EZ is required for 2017. If you distribute the assets in 2018, a final form 5500-EZ for 2018 will be required. So Company A sponsored the 401(k) plan in 2017. Company A also closed in 2017 and you started Company B. Did Company B take over as sponsor of the 401(k) plan for Company A? Or did you actually terminate the 401(k) plan with the intent of distributing the assets (like a rollover to an IRA for example)?

If you terminated the plan and distributed the assets, you need to file a final Form 5500-EZ. Did you distribute the assets of the plan in 2017?

That is a good point. I can imagine that there are many participants out there who would rather take a hardship than make a claim against insurance out of fear of cancellation or skyrocketing premiums. Even with an insurance claim, the deductible can be crippling.

After you renew, you are supposed to get your renewal letter in the mail. If you haven't gotten yours, contact the IRS and ask them about it. I had to do that last cycle. If you send them an email, they are required to respond. When I have emailed them, they have called me within a few days to discuss, and then follow up with an email response to see if everything has been resolved. EPP@irs.gov

I wouldn't bet on it being corrected anytime soon. While it was clearly an unintended consequence, fixing it does not appear to be much of a priority, or at least that is what I have been told... In the meantime, if the sponsor is really wants to get around the issue they could always amend the plan to not use the safe harbor provisions. Its not like we cant do it, we just cant do it using the safe harbor.

Any particular reason for thinking it wouldn't be legal (or allowed)?

They could have a company policy that allows the employee to convert the accrued vacation to cash on the condition that it is 401(k) contribution. That solves the cash/401(k) bit. But it opens a whole other can of worms since the ER can't actually enforce the "deferral", and is it even an elective deferral if its required?

As far as Im concerned, the usage of "stop" or "suspend" doesn't matter. For our purposes, both of them means deferrals cease when the participant elects to do so. As an administrative matter, I wouldn't start (or restart) deferrals until the participant enters into a new deferral agreement, so stop/suspend simply means stop at this point and nothing more. Most of my plans are drafted to allow for changes every payroll. I have a few plans that restrict it to quarterly but that is about it. If it makes sense to go with payroll period changes rather than quarterly, then amend away, but you certainly don't have to just because a participant might want it.

They would fall under the 5500-EZ penalty relief program rather than the DFVCP, but they will now have to file a Form 5500-EZ rather than the electronic 5500-SF. The pilot program had them file the SF electronically, but the permanent program changed that to an EZ instead. Since they fall under the EZ program, they would be ineligible because they have already received the CP-283. They could still apply for relief due to reasonable cause, but I don't know how picky the IRS is with reasonable cause filings now that the penalty relief program is in place.

As far as what the best way to prepare, the practice exam and the syllabus are your best friends. Don't assume that the practice exam material will be on the exam, but the format will. You should definitely read all the material, but focus on the learning objectives in the syllabus. If it says that a successful candidate will be able to do XYZ, it will probably be on the exam in some way. Here is what I would do since the exam is coming up fairly shortly: Answer / explain each learning objective in each chapter. You can do it on your computer or by hand, but make sure you can organize and read it. Do it in short but complete answers with bullet points if possible. Make sure all required information is included in the answer. After you are done answering all the questions/objectives, put away the book and focus on your learning objective outline. If you can answer each learning objective, you will have no problem with the exam

Yes. Yes. 100% this

Hah I thought I was going crazy for a while... I'll admit that bankruptcy is not my specialty, but the EOB suggests that the full protection from creditors in bankruptcy is not automatic for an owner only plan. It would require the plan to be "qualified in operation", and one case cited was held to not be qualified in operation because of prohibited transactions under §4975 (that the IRS considered corrected!).