CuseFan

RBD was 4/1/2021 and first distribution calendar year was 2020 (but RMD waived), second distribution calendar year is 2021 with 12/31 due date, that didn't change.

Yes, can roll out to inherited IRA, which can be Roth. If that rule applies to inherited IRAs in general (I don't deal with IRAs) then yes, I think he has that limitation.

Yes and yes, these ERISA rights must be listed in the SPD. I cut and pasted the applicable language from one of ours: Obtain, upon written request to the Plan Administrator, copies of documents governing the operation of the Plan, including insurance contracts and collective bargaining agreements, and copies of the latest annual report (Form 5500 Series) and updated summary plan description. The Plan Administrator may make a reasonable charge for the copies.

Those are very specific plans which have similar ERISA exemption, although usually the participants are the top-hat crowd anyway even if not required. Also, people incorrectly lump all limits for excess benefit plans, such as the compensation limit. I believe these are limited to just contributions or benefits that would exceed the 415 limit, which limits their utility.

Yes, you can have a nonqualified retirement plan that is not a top-hat plan, but you do have to comply with ERISA requirements for things like vesting and putting assets in trust and probably a number of other things. What you don't need to comply with are IRS coverage and nondiscrimination rules, but any tax deferral you want to accomplish is subject to deferred comp rules, and probably 409A now as well. I have been around a long time and do not recall actually ever seeing one of these but do remember getting very infrequent inquiries with the conclusion they were not worth the trouble.

CBZ is spot on. Having to aggregate for coverage treats it all like one plan anyway so there is no advantage to carving into separate plans.

Agree - no control group and no >50% ownership in both so no aggregated 415.

I was thinking that as well.

To me this appears like an attempt by P to get an impermissible in-service distribution from plan by incorporating into the DRO. Remember all those Delta pilot sham divorces attempting to get pension lump sums with QDROs? Personally, I think the plan pays the AP - and the AP incurs the tax liability and the plan's obligation is fulfilled. What the AP does with those funds to comply or not comply with the rest of the property settlement agreement is of no concern to the plan IMHO.

Can't you use 410(b) transition rules to continue to treat as separate employers until they figure out what they want to do?

exactly

But if you had in the plan, allowed an owner or HCE to take advantage of, and then amended out - you might have a discrimination issue, especially if the provision was not in the plan for a while, or was amended out before NHCEs became fully vested and were able to utilize.

That is a question for the person's accountant and/or IRA trustee/custodian.

If SEP is on IRS model document Form 5305-SEP, that precludes the sponsor from having another plan. If SEP document is on a pre-approved volume submitter/prototype document then you can have another plan. The SEP is treated as a DC plan. If more than 6% of compensation has already been funded for 2021 then you have a combined plan deduction limit of 31% of compensation, which likely severely limits the DB deduction - unless they can somehow finagle a return of 2021 SEP contributions.

no

Yes, common sense should prevail. I mean how often do you resolve a questionable situation or an obvious mistake by applying common sense but still end up in trouble with the IRS or some other government entity? Oh wait, yeah, better refer them to their attorney.

seconded, or may now it's third-ed.

That is a great point. Assuming the currently outstanding loans are not with HCEs, amending the plan to cease new loans effective 1/1/2022 (for example) is perfectly acceptable.

Unless it's a management group relationship, you need some ownership overlap for an ASG, so you most likely do not have an ASG.

As are those who don't know what they're talking about.

I feel your pain, but my understanding is that the organization offering the activity for potential CPE must submit the activity material to the respective governing organization(s) to be approved for allowing credit. So unless a session was submitted and approved for ERPA CPE, no matter how relevant to ERPA duties, I don't think it gets recognized for CPE. Not saying it's right or wrong, just that it is. Sorry

Did you acquire the assets of B or the stock of B? If just the assets, then I don't think you have any obligation. If it's the latter, you assumed all assets AND liabilities of B, including the pension plan and obligations related thereto. If those liabilities were indeed satisfied before the acquisition then maybe no issue for you - but that is the underlying question here. If the pension plan was covered by the PBGC, plan termination records are required to be maintained for seven years, so those should have been turned over. They may not be of any help here but it's worth having if possible. These records might also show that an annuity was purchased, the benefit was paid in a lump sum, or turned over to PBGC. A likely scenario is this person making a claim because they applied for Social Security and SSA gave them a letter saying they may have a benefit from this plan. Many people who were paid out their benefits years ago get these letters, forget they got paid (or think they have more coming) and come looking for their benefit. Plan sponsors are required to report deferred pension benefits to SSA (which is why this letter gets triggered) but it is an option to subsequently report a deletion to SSA when someone gets paid that benefit and laziness by plan sponsors and/or TPAS years ago results in these sorts of headaches now. We would have our clients respond in such an instance as follows: The plan was terminated as of XXXXXXX and all benefits were paid out and/or annuities purchased and/or turned over to PBGC in the case of missing or unresponsive participants. If you did not receive a significant volume of notices and forms during that time period then you had no accrued benefit in the plan at such time and your benefit was either previously paid to you in a lump sum or forfeited if you were not vested. Please check your prior financial records (bank, brokerage, IRA, etc.). If you still believe you are entitled to a benefit, please provide information to substantiate, such as a benefit statement. If a plan had small benefit cash-out provisions, general lump sum provision, or offered lump sum windows periodically, we would make note of those as well. You likely do not have that sort of information either. Usually this is sufficient to jog their memory or otherwise make them go away. Sometimes we have to dig through historical records to find a proof of distribution, but that is the rare case. Hope this was helpful, good luck.

Seriously?! Yikes.

Do not fully understand your question. There are pre-approved plans (still referred to as volume submitter plans by some) which have a 6-year cycle. Pre-approved DCP are in the current cycle with a 7/31/2022 restatement due date. Plan documents that are not on a pre-approved document (i.e., individually designed, or treated as such) are no longer on any cycle. They can get initial determination letters, DLs upon plan termination, and certain other special circumstances as IRS may allow. These plans are required to adopt interim amendments according to an IRS published list/schedule. If/when such amendments are due depends on the type of plan and what statutory requirements are lacking. Plans are not required to be restated until after 5 (I think) amendments and I don't think simple interim or administrative amendments count toward that.

Yes, but be careful on the (more than) 50% - is it just owns or "considered owning" as well? I don't recall, but if it includes the latter, then you need to make sure he has no currently exercisable option to buy the other 50% (or part thereof) as he would be considered as owning more than 50%.