CuseFan

Then again, Kevin makes a compelling case for the alternative.

I'm not a 403(b) person but I would go all-in for immediate entry in July. I'll do a 401(k) comparison - you allow immediate entry but categorically exclude part-time employees unless/until they work 1,000 hours. Person starts PT, they are in excluded class, so not eligible. Two months in they switch to full time, so longer in excluded class and enter immediately. As I said, not a 403(b) person but don't see your situation as any different - and this manner is certainly consistent with the spirit of the rules.

Richard, defined benefit plan maximum benefits cannot be exceeded, so I don't think there's much more that could be done directly via the plan, especially if ancillary tactics (life insurance) are taken after the QDRO is filed. However, this excess value in the plan does have value to F and his company and could be considered among all other assets when identifying and dividing - the trick is how to value. Good luck.

Sometimes it seems like the wild wild west out there the way a lot of small non-profits (and churches in particular) operate, and trying to explain the rules and get them to do things the right way as opposed to the easy way and the way they've always done it can be a big up hill battle - and it's just a lack of understanding from volunteers who take the path of least resistance. I don't think you are wrong. Administering payroll for someone else's employee(s) - not a problem, I guess, although who is listed as the employer (EIN, etc.) on the W-2? Considering that person as your employee for benefit purposes, especially retirement plan(s)? Big problem, as I see it, and would definitely dig in your heels to do it right (or have the other employer adopt as participating employer).

short-term deferrals, which are amounts paid soon after vesting, are generally exempt from most of 409A

Effen right you are!

Why are you not working with a provider for this?

Exactly. This is a missing participant. PBGC covered, I assume, because you did a post-dsitrib cert, so the benefit should have been turned over to the PBGC. It could not be forfeited just because you couldn't find the person, except maybe if this person went past NRD and benefits were due before plan termination and you couldn't find (if plan terms allow) - but even then I think DOL is very opinionated that you can't really do that.

Unless you carve out A's otherwise excludable early entries, I think you have to test coverage for A looking at everyone in A and B, and then for testing coverage in B you can exclude the under 21/1 employees in A and B. That is, you apply the eligibility criteria of the plan you are testing to the control group. If you have to aggregate, I think you use the most liberal eligibility requirements unless, again, you test OEs separately.

I would argue that there is initially one election - a lump sum - and then you see (independently) if permitted under the top 25 restrictions (401(a)(4) I believe) and under the 436 restrictions. In this case, I think 401(a)(4) precludes the lump sum.

I believe expanding/liberalizing eligibility is one of the permissible mid-year amendments for safe harbor plans.

If the eligibility computation period shifted to the plan (calendar) year, then eligibility requirements are satisfied at 12/31/2019 and the person enters the next entry date which I assume is 1/1. Plan document should be clear on that.

Sometimes, but rarely - I have seen it long ago but not recently - upon DB plan termination benefits are transferred (not rolled over) via trustee to trustee transfer (options were an annuity contract or a transfer w/o spousal consent). This almost never gets done because you then have to maintain the legacy annuity options in the DCP and get spousal consent to opt out of the QJSA. I would be surprised if this is your fact pattern, but just in case.

Allocation schedule is from the RK showing all the contributions allocated to participant accounts. Payroll report might only show salary deferrals (loan repayments, safe harbor and match are possibilities). Auditor wants to verify what was withheld for a participant was allocated to the participant.

As directed trustee the person is taking direction from the Plan Administrator and/or possibly (for investment direction) the participants. That could limit this person's liability to the execution of those instructions. However, if it's the business owner, who is also the PA, it doesn't really matter, but if it's a non-owner officer, maybe CFO or CHRO, who is not exercising any discretionary authority then naming as a directed trustee has utility.

That is the correct question - when did the EMPLOYER sign? I don't see an issue with the staggered trustee signatures.

Yes, I know for certain the MO situation does not apply, thanks for the confirmation.

My reading of the ASG rules for A-org or B-org groups (management organization does not apply for my case) is that there must be at least some overlap of ownership for two entities to be an ASG, is that correct? I have two service corporations (S-corps) that are each 100% owned by separate unrelated persons. They provide their services together under the same brand/joint marketing, so to the public it looks like ABC company, but each company X and Y has it's own book/P&L. I believe the rules say that there must be some ownership overlap between the A or B organization and the FSO, am I missing anything? Thanks

The RBD is 4/1/2020 but the first distribution calendar year is 2019, so agree with EG.

If you have cross-tested PS then I would say yes.

If a person can only participate if their compensation exceeds the 401(a)(17) limit, their total contributions exceed the 415 limit, if they must first contribute salary deferrals up to the 402(g) limit, or are otherwise limited by ADP testing, then I would say that constitutes "solely". If, however, anyone at or above a particular level/position, such as officers or other top management (i.e., a top-hat group), may participate and contribute without regard to the existence of any of the aforementioned limitations, then that would not constitute "solely".

That is the money quote! If you have ever thrown anything away (or taken some similar action like this consolidation) thinking this will never be needed again, only to feel the dread when the need for such arises a year or two or three later, then you know. If you have never experienced that feeling, then give it a shot! All kidding aside, if it's a matter of (your) convenience then I would make absolutely sure it can never come back to bite you on the tushy.

Probably - I think someone is either (actively) employed or terminated. If terminated, then obviously there is no need for in-service distribution. If not terminated - so no distributable event - then I think you're considered employed and eligible for in-service distribution assuming all other requirements for such are satisfied.

concur - that is a fairly standard practice, especially for (very) large plans

In general, no. However, many NQDC plans do have some payment flexibility built in, where you are allowed to the change the timing and form of payment that was otherwise locked in at the time of deferral. The requirements to that are you must make this new election one year prior to the current distribution start date and must defer receipt of payment for at least 5 years thereafter. If you have already terminated, or will terminate within the year, I believe it is too late. If you expect to retire say 5/1/2020 then you can elect now to, instead of 5 annual payments beginning 5/1/2020, get 10 annual payments beginning 5/1/2025, if my understanding of the 409A rules are correct.