CuseFan

I think that makes for an awful tasting pate!

Yes and yes.

Bo knows pronouns (for those old enough - otherwise, Bri knows pronouns)

Bang zoom CBZ!

You're welcome.

I've never used that extreme before, for including masculine, feminine, singular and plural all in one. So how would you expand upon this to include the neutral, those who do not gender-identify?

sorry - "not" and "exhausted" - and it's not even Wednesday yet!

You need to allocate reasonably ratably over not longer than 7 years. It can be fewer than 7 years, but I think you need to map out an approximate allocation schedule and stick to it. It is subject to 415, so in your above example that person could get $58k for 2021 provided (s)he had no other additions. ER is nor deducting so the 25% PS limit should not be in play. But then you should continue at same approximate amount until the escrow is exhauster.

BPAS

Peter, we have a PR RK practice and the leader of that practice tells me we have a pre-approved plan with Hacienda (but not dual qualified). I'll have him or someone from that group contact you. Thanks

Ongoing plan = auto rollover. Terminating plan = turn over to PBGC under missing participant rules. And to the consternation of many, if you have unresponsive participants in a terminating DBP with PVABs/CB accounts less than $5,000 that do not return election forms then you cannot auto rollover and must treat as missing participants and remit benefits to PBGC.

What sort of in-service distribution, lump sum, ad-hoc partial withdrawal? DC or DB? If DB, was plan sufficiently funded? What about having owner repay the distribution, then amend the plan to allow for 2022? I know this still involves a level of self correction but takes retro amendment benefiting an HCE off the table.

Correct, provided $1M is eligible payroll for eligible employees and the 401(a)(17) limit is applied.

Yeah, I think it's obvious as the Plan Document is THE primary document governing operation of the plan. Everything else is supporting, but could be useful to a participant and so included.

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