"An individual-account retirement plan allows § 401(k) contributions, provides matching contributions, and allows (but does not mandate) a non-elective contribution. The plan provides that an election to make an elective deferral (whether non-Roth or Roth) that does not include a proper investment direction is invalid. But if a participant never made elective deferrals, she might not have made an investment direction. Rather than set a default investment, the plan’s sponsor would prefer to provide that a proper investment direction is a condition for a participant to share in a non-elective contribution. This would not be an exercise of a fiduciary’s discretion; rather, the plan’s sponsor would express the provision in the plan’s governing document. In this employer’s circumstances, excluding a few people from a non-elective contribution would not result in a failure under Internal Revenue Code § 410(b) or § 401(a)(4). Is there some other tax-qualification condition a plan might not meet because of this provision? Is there an ERISA mandate a plan might not meet because of this provision?"

"I have been divorced for 6 years. As part of our divorce settlement which was filed with the courts as part of our divorce paperwork, my ex is entitled to more than $100,000 from my teaching pension. In Pennsylvania, it is a state funded pension and can be taken out as lump sum (which I would have to do) or as a monthly benefit. Our mediator had a QDRO drafted by an independent company that specializes in drafting QDROs for Pennsylvania teachers. My ex refused to sign saying that it was not the correct amount and has refused to since. The mediator does not know how this will impact the QDRO. The pension system thinks he will be entitled to it, but hasn't faced this before. Help, please. Retirement is two years away..."

"Tax-qualified defined benefit plan offers early retirement distributions (age 55-64). NRA is age 65. Plan provides that if a participant terminates and commences early retirement payments, and then becomes reemployed before age 65, he can continue to receive payments only if he waives (in writing) the opportunity to earn future accruals on service earned between reemployment and eventual final retirement. In that case his payments continue unchanged with no additional accruals or further adjustments. Is that legal? If such a particiapnt does not waive the additional accruals, his benefit is 'suspended' during the reemployment period and then resumes at eventual retirement, adjusted to reflect additional accruals earned during reemployment along with any required actuarial adjustments."

"Hypothetical: Non-5% owner is age 75 and rolls 100% of balance to IRA in May 2019. Terminates employment in August 2019. It seems there may be an RMD requirement. Correct? (Although, if he had not terminated employment, there would be none.) A possibly similar example: Non-5% owner 70 years old retires in April 2019. He will turn 70-1/2 in November 2019. He requests a 100% rollover in July. He must take an RMD and roll over only the balance in July even though not yet 70-1/2."

"A plan fails the ADP test for 2018 and refunds are made by March 15, 2019. Later it's discovered that there was an error in the test and additional refunds need to be processed. Is the excise tax due on the total refunds or only those made after March 15?"

"A plan is slightly overfunded by about $200,000. Owner-only sole proprietor. Could the sponsor leave the plan active, roll his current 415 limit benefit from the plan and leave the excess assets in the plan? He'd then invest the remaining $200,000 in a money market account so as not to gain interest. In 3 years when his new 415 limit is $200,000 more, he would take the excess. Sound legal? I know there's a lot more to it, but trying to keep it as simple as possible."

"New client has outstanding loans with missed payments. Some loans have not been paid on at all going back a year. I was going to give the following options to the client for correcting. Please let me know if there are any issues with these: [1] Catch up loans for all missed payments including interest and start loan payments on next payroll. [2] Re-amortize loans, with new start date but same end date as original loan so it is still paid off within 5 years of the loan origin. If this is allowed, the interest rate of the original plan was higher than the current so I would re-amortize using the current (lower) interest rate. [3] Have participants take out a second loan for the missed payments, and contribute the money back to the plan and start both loans on next payroll (assuming the plan allows for 2 loans and the second loan does not exceed the limit based on their balance or $50k). [4] Have age 59-1/2 employees take in-service distributions (trued up for taxes) for missed loan payments, and contribute the money back to the plan. Note: none of these loans are for HCEs."