CuseFan

you must specify the excluded class in the document and you must allow them plan entry if and when they work 1000 hours

NQDC is always reported via W-2 unless it's a death benefit paid to a beneficiary, then 1099R is appropriate. There should be no FICA/Medicare issues because that should have been applied along the way - unless amounts did not vest until just before payments were to begin (or it was a DB SERP where the PVAB was not reasonably ascertainable until commencement). Regardless, it is more a payroll function than a TPA or trustee/custodian function as HR stated.

Agree with Kevin to double check the document because that sort of provision has become much more common among pre-approved plans. Also, I do not think there is any prohibition against receiving a valid beneficiary designation post-death, the 401(a)(9) regulations even mention a designated beneficiary by the 9/30 of the year following the year of death. That said, as everyone else notes, the validity/authenticity of the beneficiary designation is the important question of fact.

i would hope the beneficiary designation was the bank as trustee of the trust and did not just list the bank itself as beneficiary. if that is the case, I don't see any reason for the PA to go through the trust agreement after establishing to its satisfaction that the bank is the trustee to this trust. As only a person or a trust can be named a beneficiary (right?), if the form did simply name the bank as beneficiary then I think the validity is in question and it's more complicated. In that case a review of the agreement might be warranted, but I might suggest legal consultation, especially if someone other than the surviving spouse is trust beneficiary. As far as document retention, it doesn't hurt to keep.

Exactly - maximum testing flexibility and surprise avoidance - those should be sufficient reasons, and the owner(s) don't get any less, it's just in a different bucket that isn't immediately vested (which the owner shouldn't have to worry about anyway).

unless the industry standard is "laziness"......you absolutely have to file....and from the quality answers above, not filing is clearly not the industry standard.

if it was a separate interest QDRO, her piece of the benefit inures to her when filed and she in essence becomes the participant for that benefit, except for a subsequent J&S on her commencement.

Agree with Cents - if document says you issue notice and suspend then you have a defect. I would issue notice and suspend ASAP. if payments were suspended w/o notice provided then I think actuarial increases must be provided for that period until notice was provided. This is a defect correction and shouldn't create a precedent. I used to hear some actuaries say consistency over accuracy, which drove me nuts - like Cents' comment at the end!

the PW contributions are not compensation. person's w-2 would be $16, safe harbor would be $.48, and the profit sharing (or PW) would be $3.52 as it could be offset by the safe harbor (document should have that specific language).

As kc noted, I would confirm with the client (owner). If you have the plan contact - the one presumably giving you the contribution amounts or rates - getting the highest amount or rate, it smells a little funny. This may all be on the up and up, but still warrants a double check and will demonstrate to the owner that you're looking out for him or her.

We would pay the value of the missed payments plus interest to the spouse's estate and then review/revise procedures that led to this failure. They could forfeit and move on and likely never have it discovered but that is not the correct (or right) thing to do. Two years removed from spouse's death, however, may make this difficult, especially if estate was closed or there isn't one. In that case I would suggest seeking out any children.

I think there isn't a one-year break-in-service so you treat as if they never left, in terms of participation, and so the clock is still ticking from 12/5/2016. Not that it matters for this, but did this person get a distribution right before they were rehired? If so, I'd be more concerned about potential "sham" terminations/retirements to skirt distribution restrictions and get at retirement funds.

Agree with ESOP Guy - you can exclude as a class because "interns" are clearly a reasonable classification of employees for business reasons, but as noted, any that meet eligibility requirements that could have been imposed (i.e., 21 & 1) cannot be excluded from coverage and nondiscrimination testing (but are still excluded from plan, unlike part-timers who would have to be covered).

but the potential return for the plaintiffs' attorneys..... isn't that what this is really about?

and if you haven't had a long enough history of higher earnings then you might run into 415 limitations as well

Yeah, really. it does seem like if you're going to fund up it should be for all - or for all who request lump sum distributions, or do not fund up for anyone. But if the existing funded status was sufficient to pay one lump sum, then I think the Plan Administrator is obligated to facilitate that pay out and subsequent requests are SOL, agreed?

Yes, but put that aside - what if this was a mid-size medical practice and one owner retired and wanted a lump sum while two others left to form their own practice and also wanted lump sums, and the plan was sufficient enough to pay just one but the others would then be restricted? Could the plan pay the retiree and leave the TVRs restricted? Pay the first request but not the other two? Pay the largest, pay the smallest? What if through the receivables of one of the exiting owners the employer funded up enough to pay just that owner? i know these are all questions that stress the importance of a good partnership agreement, but what if it's a PC?

Partnership agreement doesn't say anything. Can the employer fund up and just pay the one HCE, telling the others sorry, still restricted?

DB plan (CB format, but that doesn't matter) for law firm has multiple terminated former partners who are among top 25 restricted HCEs/former HCEs and cannot get a lump sum because plan is not, and will not after distributions, be 110% funded. Employer is interested in funding up the plan to be able to pay one particular restricted HCE, but not all of them. All the regulatory guidance I've seen appears in the context of "a" restricted employee. Favoring/discriminating for one HCE over another HCE may not have any qualified plan ramifications, but the danger may be other legal implications. I don't know if the partnership agreement stipulates anything in that regard - let's assume it does not, otherwise the answer would be easy, right?

The annuity starting date was the RBD, and since you are past that date I don't see a basis for allowing the spouse to make an election. I think proper course of action is to commence the survivor annuity retro to the RBD and make a lump sum catch up payment with interest to correct for the missed RMDs.

i don't think you can offset match, which are contributions under 401(m), only similar employer non-elective contributions under 401(a) such as safe harbor non-elective, profit sharing or DB.

you don't need to pass rate group testing at 70% (RPT) - the reasonable classification is for coverage only. if coverage passes RPT by this one additional person not benefiting then your NDT can pass however you get it there - RPT or ABT.

then the match is permitted, but still fails ACP and so must be forfeited to extent not vested and distributed to extent vested, right Tom?

i would view as an employer "corrective contribution" because they didn't withhold the proper amount from the ipads when they were given. no good deed goes unpunished right? lesson: change comp definition to W-2 excluding non-cash fringe benefits.

love the Peabody & (pet boy) Sherman refernce Tom!