Luke Bailey

Agree completely with QDROphile. The provisions allowing revocable assignment are in 1.401(a)-13(d) and (e). Of course, the lender could and should take into account that this is an income source for you when considering your ability to repay the loan.

Right. It's both. It is a new plan, but since you are merging a spinoff of the MEP into your new individual employer plan it is a continuation for purposes of counting service, vesting, no cut-back, etc.

bito'money, I have not worked through the PBGC's forms/instructions/guidance on this line-by-line, but I think that in order to do that you would have to list the participant as the missing participant/beneficiary, even though he or she is dead. I think if the participant is already dead you are supposed to identify the beneficiaries. But the PBGC obviously does take amounts for living missing participants who eventually die before they are located, so in theory as long as there is no direct question on the form on which you have to represent that your "missing participant" is still alive (and I did not find any), it might work. Note the PBGC does what you to attach documentation regarding default beneficiary provisions of plan and any participant designation, foreseeing the possibility that the participant may be dead before they find him or her. But technically, I think that they anticipate that the participant is alive when you identify him or her. Could be wrong. Maybe others have reviewed this more closely.

As Bill points out the excess must be surrendered to maintain the "incidental benefit" and the terms of the Plan.  Any excess cash value that would also be surrendered along with the reduction in death benefit would be earnings to the Plan.

Surrender the excess insurance. 

Are you saying that (in your example), the QACA contribution for 2025 has a 2 year vesting schedule and the QACA contribution for 2026 has a separate 2 year vesting schedule? 
 
Because if you are, that’s wrong and vesting like that hasn’t been allowed since the 80’s. 

They can be, but not necessarily, and such should be closely examined in the person's state of residence (bankruptcy laws). 
The administrative burden - continuing restatements, interim amendments, 5500 filings - and associated costs should be weighed against any real (not perceived) difference in levels of protection.

First thought is, why ask the actuary's office rather than the accountant's? 

My understanding - and I thought this came up not that long ago and I opined similarly - is that you can only do that if the CG files a consolidated return, which is clearly not the case here. So for CG AB, A cannot make contributions and take deduction for B's employees on A's tax return, or vice versa, but either can contribute whatever toward A's and B's employees if AB deducts on a consolidated tax return. 

Boy sure would be nice if the IRS had clear guidance on M&A and how it affects plans and testing wouldn't it?
I think the approach taken is reasonable and would not be challenged by the IRS assuming A now owns all of B or at least enough for a CG to exist in the testing year.
I also think testing them separately would be acceptable as well.

CuseFan, how many times the clients told us that "oh by the way I have a SEP that I funded" after adopting the DB plan?

In summary - SEP no if on 5305, yes if on another platform but limited to 6% of compensation (if PBGC-exempt) or 31% combined plan deduction limit applies. I see no legal basis for taking out the SEP contribution other than it being a withdrawal of a contribution which is already "in the books" and so you deal with the 31% limit and carry forward DB deduction to 2024. Depending on 2024 max, might need to do another carryforward in year two. All the related SEP coordination should have happened before DBP was adopted and, if it was and the client or advisor ignored, their problem not yours.

they can have both - if the documents allow - the model SEP doc does not. 
If they do have both - the combined limits for 404 and such apply. 
I would be cautious of removing money from the SEP. 
The standard correction for a non-deductible contribution is an excise tax and carryforward, not removal of the excess unless it also violates 415 etc. 

Isn't that only if it's using the IRS Model SEP, that it then has to be the exclusive plan for the year?

I think if the only exclusion is "HCEs" then they participate in their first year (assuming no immediate ownership). 
You could probably draft an additional exclusion along the lines of: "Any other employee reasonably expected to earn annualized compensation equal to or greater than the amount set forth in Code Section 414(q)(1)(B) in effect for the plan year."
As long as that doesn't cause you to fail coverage testing, should be okay. 

It would depend on how the exclusion in drafted in the Plan Document.

Do we know for certain whether or not the participant understood the differences between traditional and Roth deferrals?   
Were those differences explained to the participant by the plan administrator?  In writing
Is the Plan administrator required to provide such explanations to the participant?
 Was the election for confusing?  Ex:  [  ]  Roth  [ ]  Traditional
I have more than a few times been confused about which box to check, the one before or the one after.
Do you see 0% or 1% on the carton of mlk below?   
I would be stunned that any regular employee would have a clue about all  to the differences between Roth and traditional deferrals.   

 
 

Ok, not sorry!

I agree with every word of this except “sorry.”

Work we did on September 11, 2001 and soon after in managing some consequences from that day’s deaths, injuries, casualties, and other harms remains a deep reminder about what matters in every aspect of our lives and faiths.

YES, YES, YES!!!

Mistake or not, the participant's actual election was executed, so I say have them fix it going forward and deal with it. Why is it always the collective "we" - plan sponsors, advisors, TPAs, RKs - that are asked to bend over backwards to accommodate a participant's mistake, poor judgment, or lack of attention? When is the participant held accountable for not doing what (s)he is supposed to and then months or years later comes looking for help on situation (s)he could have rectified almost immediately had (s)he paid the slightest attention? I'm sorry, but if I intended to make a PRE-TAX deferral from my pay and my income tax withholdings remained the same, I would have noticed and said something - if not after the first pay period, certainly within a few.
Sorry for the rant, and I don't do this administration so I don't deal with these situations - but you all do - and don't you have enough work and have enough plan sponsor and advisor administrative "issues" to fix already?
OK, I'm done.
Also, it's 9/11, so let's remember those we lost that terrible day and from its aftermath.

Let's assume that no fraud is involved in the election process.  Had the election been made on paper, there would be no basis for challenging the election other than the participant's misunderstanding.  If the computer system was designed to confirm and reconfirm the election before formally accepting it on behalf of the plan, then there would be no basis challenging election.  If the computer system is unforgiving, then it is more credible that the participant just clicked the wrong thing and made a mistake.
Under a confirm and reconfirm process, the participant enters there election, the system displays a the election along with a short description of the election (e.g., "You elected to defer x% of your salary as a Roth deferral.  Your Roth deferral will not reduce the withholding of income taxes from your paycheck.  If your election is correct, please on the Accept button.  If your election is not correct, click on the Cancel button."  If the participant clicks on the Accept button, the election is recorded by the system with a date and time stamp, and becomes irrevocable.
I have seen a handful of situations where a participant elects a Roth deferral and calls up HR/Benefits/Recordkeeper after receiving their paycheck to demand that their election be changed.  In most of these situations, the participant did not understand that their net pay was going to go down by the amount of the Roth deferral and they experienced a form of sticker shock.
 

The challenge is for the plan’s administrator to discern whether what a computer recorded as a Roth “designation” [26 C.F.R. § 1.401(k)-1(f)(1)(i)] was in fact the participant’s designation.
Just to pick a few examples, some administrators might be persuaded by evidence that the record was not the participant’s designation because:
the participant was hospitalized and unconscious;
the participant was mentally incapacitated; or
an unauthorized impostor used the participant’s identity credentials
when the computer received the ostensible designation.
Some administrators might consider undoing a record if one is persuaded it resulted from a mistake of fact—that is, the participant sincerely believed, and reasonably believed, that what the computer recorded as a Roth designation really was a non-Roth designation.
Yet, an administrator might be reluctant to ground an undo on a particular individual’s misreading of the plan’s (online) form or instruction for which mark makes a Roth or non-Roth designation unless the administrator prudently finds that many reasonable readers would similarly misread the form or instruction.
A challenge is getting evidence that supports the administrator’s obedience, prudence, and impartiality in finding that what the computer recorded as a designation was not the participant’s designation. To honor the plan’s provision based on tax law’s condition that a designation is irrevocable, a fiduciary would look for facts to distinguish a falsity or real mistake from a participant merely changing one’s mind.
Consider a fiduciary’s duties to make and keep records of its discretionary decision-making.
This is not advice to anyone.

Peter, as one who does not get involved in that level of administration, I'll give you my opinion from a top-level viewpoint FWIW.
"Must" the payroll function cut off deferrals when limits are reached? No. "Should" the payroll function have the ability to recognize the highest applicable limit available to a participant and only stop deferrals once that limit is reached? Yes, in a perfect world, and certainly yes for any payroll service company that claims to be full service. For those companies that use third party software to run their own payroll in-house, such software may lack the ability or the users lack the programming skills to properly account for all the new complexities associated with recent legislation. In those instances I think they should make every effort to properly administer limits and try to at least account for most situations.
Yes, it is easy enough to identify and correct excess deferrals after year-end through corrective distributions (I am not a proponent of playing with W2s after the fact). Besides the added administrative work, the other ramification could be under withholding on income taxes for an affected individual who gets a material taxable refund. The employer would need to make sure recipients were able to make timely tax withholding elections on their refunds to avoid be under withheld.
If I'm the employee, I might consider this a big hassle and ask why should I have this inconvenience because my employer or its payroll provider can't properly administer legal limits? Furthermore, if I'm expecting my deferrals to be stopped at a certain point and they aren't, I'm not getting a part of my pay that I was expecting. Yes, I could then elect to cease deferrals, but then I have to elect to restart come 1/1, putting the administrative burden on me the employee.
Anyway, that is my humble opinion.