Luke Bailey

It seems clear the plan needs to be made whole for the amount that would have been forfeited.    EPCRS is only speaking to if it was paid in error for the lack of a distributable event.  In such a case no one is "hurt" as the person only got their money- just early.
In this case anyone that would get a forfeiture allocation would be hurt if the forfeitures are re-allocated. 
If the forfeitures reduce then the money is being paid to the plan regardless as less forfeitures means large contributions.   I would still go through the process to cover the plan and just in case no contribution is made- at which time it becomes like the forfeiture re-allocated fact pattern. 

Today I learned ANPRM = Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In my opinion, this will become the biggest issue (assuming as Luke notes that there is no underlying PT based on the husband not having enough personal funds, etc.). If my experience is any indication, at some point the husband will want to engage in some form of transaction with the plan's interest, whatever that may look like. 
I dealt with a very similar situation recently where an individual co-invested alongside his plan several years ago, then the plan could no longer support its obligations in the underlying investment. We had to tell the individual he could not fulfill the plan's obligations or buy out the plan's share of the investment personally. In a fact pattern like this, it leaves few good options.   

Seems right to me, but of course I don't have all the facts, just your sketch of them.

Clarification:  you can't change the plan year after the end of the short plan year (ie, 12/31 in this example).
BTW, if you want to show some consulting chops, you will ask the client why.  Sometimes, there can be good reasons to leave the plan year unchanged even when the company fiscal year changes.  (Asking why does not mean you are taking a position or being accusatory, just trying to help.)

You can't change the plan year after the end of the plan year. So you're stuck with the 9/30/20 and 9/30/21 year ends.
Then you can have a short plan year from 10/1/21-12/31/21.
 
WCP

It is my understanding, referring to IRS Notice 2005-58 and Treas. Reg. Sec. 1.457-11 as the most recent guidance, a Federal Credit Union may establish either plan.  However if they are establishing an ineligible plan under 457(f) it must also meet the document and operational compliance with both 457(f) and 409A.

Are you over age 72?
How small is small - less than $200?
There is no penalty on you if the plan fails to withhold, but it jeopardizes the plan. Worst case, the plan could get disqualified and your contributions would no longer be eligible for rollover. That's an extreme result though, and rarely used. Most likely, as long as all taxes are eventually paid, the IRS will not bother anyone about it.

This is complicated -- but, at the very least, the participant is entitled to a single payment from the db plan equal to all the payments she should have received, plus interest. 
Everything else depends on the provisions of the plans involved. I have a feeling a lump sum was not available from the pension, so there was never a valid election, and the pension started paying out in the default form (and the checks were never cashed).

Hmmm - in order to be eligible for the credit, the employer cannot have maintained a plan during the immediately preceding 3-year period, to which contributions were made, or benefits accrued, for "substantially the same employees." If some NHC's will be covered - say it is a safe harbor nonelective plan for example - I'd be inclined to say the credit is available. Up to the accountant, of course...

The 1.410(b)-2(f) transition relief from 410(b) applies only if the plan satisfies 410(b) immediately before the acquisition. Company B's plan, adopted in 2018, did not exist before the acquisition, so the relief does not apply to Company B's plan for 2018, 2019, and 2020. If Company B's plan does not satisfy 410(b) for those years separately, then one option for B to pass 410(b) is to try to aggregate with Company A's plan for those years and hope that the aggregated plans pass 410(b). 

In the first case I believe the 401(k) does not have a problem but the SIMPLE IRA does. VCP can be used to ask that the SIMPLE IRA contributions remain in the IRA for years you had 2 plans.
In the 2nd case I'm not clear on what happened. Did the controlled group/related employer adopt the Plan? Does the Plan Document automatically pull in members of a controlled group whether of not they formally signed on to the plan? Would the plan pass coverage with the related employer properly excluded, that is if it did not sign on and the document doesn't automatically pull them in?

Maybe this is a silly question, but why don't we know the 2016 ADP? Last I checked we are past 12/31/2016. But for the sake of discussion I will assume it isn't known at the time the correction is being made.
When EPCRS does not specify a correction method for a given situation, you should do something reasonable under the circumstances. Any of the following might be reasonable:
Use the 2015 ADP Use the average ADP from 2010-2015 Use the highest ADP from 2010-2015 Use the deferral percentage that was actually elected effective 2/15/2016 There are doubtlessly other reasonable methods as well. If you are filing VCP because this is a significant failure then you will have the opportunity to get affirmative approval for your correction method from the IRS.

Agree with QDROphile.  A QDRO only need the following to qualify:
What information must a domestic relations order contain to qualify as a QDRO under ERISA?
QDROs must contain the following information:
-the name and last known mailing address of the participant and each alternate payee;
- the name of each plan to which the order applies;
- the dollar amount or percentage (or the method of determining the amount or percentage) of the benefit to be paid to the alternate payee; and
-the number of payments or time period to which the order applies.
[ERISA § 206(d)(3)(C)(i)-(iv); IRC § 414(p)(2)(A)-(D)]

Some plans handle disputes about qualification through the plan’s claims procedures. At one point, the DOL took the position that the issue was not a matter for claims procedures. I do not know if the position has changed.
Claims procedures are either described in the summary plan description or summarized in the summary plan description, with a full claims procedure document available upon request. You make your case by submitting a claim for benefits, explaining the error made by the plan and the legal authority for the outcome you desire. The plan is required to assess and respond, with an explanation of its position.  The exercise often forces plans to get religion, or at least competent advice about its position.

It's on the IRS website.  All three, I think...
I'll even help
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-required-minimum-distributions-rmds

Why? If this was a suspension under the CARES Act then you can extend the term of the loan by up to 1 year. See section 5  of Notice 2020-50.
 
If you're not extending the term of the loan then it makes perfect sense. Let's say the outstanding balance when the suspension started was $25,000 with 57 payments remaining. Then you decide to eliminate 9 of those payments. Even if it wasn't increased with interest, dividing the balance by a smaller number of remaining payments is going to result in a larger installment amount.
 
I believe it would. However if the plan permits participants to refinance their loans it may be possible for them to replace the loan with a new loan that has a different interest rate.

I hadn't even thought of changing the interest rate.  I suppose you could, if there is something in the loan policy saying you do that for reamortizations (but reamortizations aren't generally contemplated).
Did you add one year to the loan payment schedule?  Generally I'd expect payments to be lower.

Belgarath, we are now in agreement.

Another demonstration of the legal maxim that truth is stranger than fiction.

In-house attorney, that is probably what the intent is. Without reviewing the documents, facts, etc., I can't really give you specific legal advice. This forum is not really designed for that.
Good luck!

The 1.416 Treasury Regulations require you to use 415 annual compensation-- 1/1/2020 to 12/31/2020. 

Looking at language in a pre-approved document, it says annual 415 compensation, so I would say you need to look at the entire year, but you should check the 416 regulations for certainty.

No, CARES Act withdrawals need to be completed by 12/31/2020 to be treated as CARES Act withdrawals. Congress may pass legislation extending that date into 2021 if they feel it is warranted, but so far they have not. And by completed I mean check issued or funds transferred with a 2020, 1099-R attached to it.
 

SPARK members have met to discuss this (I would expect virtually al R/K'er have some variant of this issue (we do).  Counsel to SPARK was on the call as well, and while not giving specific "legal" advice, indicated that *if* the money were out of the trust by the deadline (as in a common distribution checking account), arguably the deadline was met even though the check wasn't cut till the next day(s).  BUT, there is a major 1099 issue - as to which year it is taxable in - if the check didn't go out until 1/4/2021....
No resolution....