Larry Starr

But remember, whoever actually takes over legal responsibility for running the business has the authority to appoint the trustee (and fire the trustee), so the "backup trustee" is only as secure as the new business operator allows him to be.

Natalie says (and Natalie is ALWAYS right!) NO RMD (and you have all the cites!). See last paragraph for summary.

What does "leaving" mean? Did they set up their own plan and the assets and people are transferring? That's not a termination. Are they TERMINATING "their" plan and not going to have a plan anymore? That's a termination requiring full vesting, but only of "their" employees.

Here's what we tell clients each year in the footnotes in our annual "new limits" letter/chart (it only matters for those plans not on calendar year) which I keep on the door of the cabinet just above my head: The DC limit is effective for limitation (plan) years ENDING in the given calendar year. Annual Compensation limit is effective for plan years BEGINNING in the given calendar year. HCE Compensation limit is effective for plan years BEGINNING in the given calendar year. Soc. Sec. Taxable Wage Base is effective for plan years BEGINNING in the given calendar year.

I think the specific answer to the question (which QDROphile also suggests, I believe) is NO. The plan does not have to hold off paying out the beneficiary UNLESS there is an order that they are adjudicating. She has no order; she may not get one; and the beneficiary has ERISA rights which can be enforced. If she can move quickly (BTW, these things NEVER move quickly!), then maybe she has a shot. My guess is she is already SOL.

That is absolutely true; but I would not call them unrelated any more if common ownership exceeds 50%. The EMPLOYERS (not necessarily the PEOPLE) are now related.

No you don't! You agree with me. Go back and read the question asked, then read my answer of NO. I said it has to be in effect before 1/1/19, so it CAN be done now. It is NOT too late!

Indeed; but until the court approves the property settlement, it can't produce a QDRO.

Understood; but since the VAST MAJORITY (95% is probably an understatement) of our plans don't allow loans, not an advantage for our clients. Want a loan? Go to the bank! :-)

Any chance you tried googling this before posting? I tried this for ha ha's: adding safe harbor match for next year. Lots of answers. Here's just one. See page 8. http://product.ftwilliam.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Safe-Harbor-Webinar-2017_FINAL.pdf The answer, BTW, is no. It has to be in effect by first day of the plan year.

And even if it doesn't require 100% to the spouse (that is, it provides a J&S as the automatic), the spouse is still the beneficiary for at least 1/2 and her consent will be needed.

Simple answer: yes, it is legal. The plan admin firm has to confirm that the plan document allows for it or amend it appropriately. As CuseFan noted, the real question is why would these HCEs want to roll over to this plan versus their own IRA which they would be in full control of?

As others tried to explain, your story really has nothing to do with a QDRO. If there was a court determination on your divorce and a QDRO was required, then the QDRO is written by a competent party (could be your lawyer, could be someone like me who does QDROs for lawyers, but SOMEONE writes it) and then it is taken to the JUDGE to be signed. Neither of the participants need to sign it or agree to it. It is the judge's order to allow the plan to make the payout that was outlined in the court approved settlement. Once you have a judge signed order, it goes to the plan and the plan makes the appropriate distribution. HOWEVER, it isn't clear from your saga whether there was a finalized agreement in mediation that was approved by the court. If not, then you are not done yet with the divorce and there cannot be a QDRO signed by a judge because that happens AFTER there is a court approved agreement. So yes, you might still be dealing with a difficult divorce (I have seen MANY of those) but until there is a court approved settlement that requires a QDRO be produced, and until that QDRO is produced and signed by the judge, you are not able to get anything from a retirement plan. Sorry to have to give you the bad news.

Are you asking if this situation gives rise to a failure to provide a blackout notice? If that's the question, I think not. Nothing has been said about the ability of the participant to invest his funds in accordance with the plan investment options. Just that he hasn't been able to get his money OUT. That does not give rise to a blackout issue, but it does give rise to a violation of ERISA rights and can leave the trustee personally responsible. "Pay the $2 dollars".

You also have the right to ask for a copy of the adoption agreement (where it appears they believe this issue is addressed) as well as the entire plan document; ask for them.

Uh....yeah, but subsequent distributions would be!

I go with your more conservative party. It is very much a facts and circumstances issue; the issue of "employment status" is much more difficult than obvious, and impacts many issues outside of just our retirement concerns. But in this case, I would ask the question "has he been re-hired", and if the answer is yes, then he has returned to employment, even though he's now on a three week "leave of absence".

Recommendation for anyone posting on this service, PLEASE provide ALL DETAILS on your situation. Here, we have no information on the loan details; besides the amount of the loan. how much was he paying and what was the amount supposed to be? Mike noted the issues based on his best guess (which is usually pretty damn good!), but when you post questions to this forum, please give us MORE info than you think we need, rather than bare bones. The specifics often make big differences in the appropriate response.

Let's say the DB plan allowed for rollovers into the plan by the participant from their prior employers, and those assets were held as separate accounts. It is allowable for the plan to provide for inservice distributions to be available for those assets, and at any time if that is what is desired. I think that answers your question, but let us know. Larry.

No, you can't do that. Read this: IRA one-rollover-per-year rule You generally cannot make more than one rollover from the same IRA within a 1-year period. You also cannot make a rollover during this 1-year period from the IRA to which the distribution was rolled over. Beginning after January 1, 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own. The one-per year limit does not apply to: rollovers from traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs (conversions) trustee-to-trustee transfers to another IRA IRA-to-plan rollovers plan-to-IRA rollovers plan-to-plan rollovers Once this rule takes effect, the tax consequences are: you must include in gross income any previously untaxed amounts distributed from an IRA if you made an IRA-to-IRA rollover (other than a rollover from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA) in the preceding 12 months, and you may be subject to the 10% early withdrawal tax on the amount you include in gross income. See IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule for more on this limit.

You must be an actuary; what you said was absolutely correct and absolutely useless! (Substitute attorney for actuary to get joke as I originally heard it).

Luke, you added the "not" in this sentence: "Suppose the firm/employer terminates its db plan after 8 plan years, files 5310, and indicates on the 5310 that it does intend to establish a new db plan covering the same participants. The action anticipated is being fully disclosed.

Kwalified, Are you an estate planning attorney? Leaving retirement plan assets to a trust (any type of trust) is fraught with enormous complications and should have a very competent legal/tax advisor involved. You can read about many of the issues in Nancy Choate's text (Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits). https://www.ataxplan.com/ Frankly, if you are not a competent estate planning or tax attorney knowledgeable about this issue, you should provide NO guidance since the odds are your guidance will be incorrect. This is not simple stuff. I know a lot about this stuff and have been involved with a few over the years but I bring in competent council if the client is really interested in talking about this subject. Can they name a charitable trust as beneficiary? Absolutely. Pitfalls? Too many to discuss here.

Agreed.

No. You have to separate from service AFTER 55 to be eligible. The fact that it is severance means she is not an employee and that occurred prior to 55 so you don't get the freebee.