How should participants be reported who were originally reported with a Code A, then reported as a D when they began receiving benefits, but then payments cease before the participants are paid out?

The instructions to the Form 8955-SSA state that a Code D should be used to report "a participant previously reported under the plan number shown on this form who is no longer entitled to those deferred vested benefits. This includes a participant who has begun receiving benefits, has received a lump-sum payout, or has been transferred to another plan ..."

The instructions to the Form 8955-SSA have a CAUTION that states: "If payment of the deferred vested retirement benefit ceases before ALL of the participant's benefit is paid to the participant or beneficiary, information on the participant's remaining benefit shall be filed on the Form 8955-SSA filed for the plan year following the last plan year within which the payment ceased."

However, the instructions to Code A state in part "Use this code for a participant not previously reported." Should a Code A be used in this situation, should we report using a Code B or is no additional reporting required in this situation?

Code B states: Use this code for a participant previously reported under the plan number shown on this form to modify some of the previously reported information. Enter all the current information for columns (b) through (g), as applicable. You do not need to report a change in the value of a participant's account since that is likely to change. However, you may report such a change if you want. We are not aware of Code B being used in this manner. Our understanding is that it is primarily intended for correcting or modifying information incorrectly reported.

We have a client, a medical practice, with one owner-doctor, 100%, and two non-owner doctors, along with some rank and file employees. The plan was set up to exclude "non-owner doctors" from eligibility to participate in the plan. All the doctors are HCEs. Now, the owner-doctor would like to make an offer of employment to a new non-owner doctor and he wants to make the plan available to just this new non-owner doctor but not the two non-owner doctors he already has.

We were thinking about amending the plan to simply exclude the two existing non-owner doctors by name. As we have never done that before, we are not 100% comfortable doing it without asking the advice of the experts. Would you do it that way or is there another technique? As an aside, every year when the rate group testing is done for the new comparability profit sharing contribution, our software includes the two existing non-owner doctors in the test, even though they are not eligible to participate in the plan. We are not 100% comfortable with that, either, and would like to know if this is really right. The fact that they are HCEs and they do not get a contribution helps to pass the tests and that doesn't really seem "fair" but if it is permissible, we will continue to take advantage of it.

My company's ESOP terminated after sale of the company. 80% of the funds were distributed one year after the termination event. The remaining 20% were supposed to have been distributed at the 2 year mark but the company is now stating that the distribution is delayed indefinitely because of "an issue with the Trustee." I'm posting here because while legal guidelines for distribution of a still-active ESOP are pretty clear, I haven't been able to confirm the guidelines for full distribution of a terminated ESOP. How long can the company delay on the remaining 20%?

I have a $900,000 plan with 30 lives. One deceased participant has an account of $300,000 in this pooled account. We run quarterly valuations. The trust value has dropped 7% since the end of the last quarter. Are we permitted to run a special valuation to pay him and two others out? The other two distribution elections just happened to come in at the same time. I would hate for all of the other smaller accounts to absorb the loss.

I have two companies in a controlled group. Each company sponsors its own plan. Currently the plans are identical. They run their own payroll and have their respective benefits managers. One company now wants to add a Roth provision. Other than the potential for a BRF coverage issue, is there any rule that requires this specific (or any other plan design feature) be coordinated between plans provided each could pass the BRF test?

Is there a reasonable time frame you can allow for a plan sponsor to pay out a lump sum after a temporary window has expired? Let's say someone claims their packet was lost and they had to resend, does a sponsor have to honor the payment, say within 30 days, 60 days, etc.?