"Company A sponsors a 401(k) plan and there are two participating employers who are currently a part of the same controlled group with Company A. Buyer is purchasing Company A only. The participating employers are not being purchased and Buyer / Seller do not want to create a multiple employer plan by allowing the employers to continue participation post-closing. Can the current plan be spun off into two plans and if so, are there any concerns that the assets are and will continue to be commingled post-closing considering that the participating employers will no longer be a part of Company A's controlled group?"

"I was reviewing Form W-4P to determine if the payer is to withhold differently for annuities that started, for example, in 2017 vs. 2025 when there is no W-4P on file. 2025 Form W-4P states: 'If you don't give Form W-4P to your payer...., then the payer will withhold tax from your payments as if your filing status is single with no adjustments in Steps 2 through [4] For payments that began before 2025, your current withholding election (or your default rate) remains in effect unless you submit a new Form W-4P. Client A, who annuitized in 2017 and never submitted a withholding certificate, had an original 'default withholding rate' of 'married with 3 allowances'. Client B, who annuitized in 2025 and has not submitted a withholding certificate, has a default withholding rate of 'single with no adjustments'. Am I understanding correctly that in 2025, in the continued absence of a Form W-4P, Client A's default withholding remains 'married with 3 allowances'? We just want to know if in the absence of a W-4P, whether or not Client A's withholding must conform to the newer default of 'single with no adjustments' or if it remains with the original default of 'married with 3 allowances'. TIA"

"Parent Company is in Korea. US Company is part of the controlled group. They have some Korean Employees who solely worked in Korea for 2024. They are now in the US working and getting paid US dollars. For 2024 HCE determination, do we consider 2023 Korean income?"

"Let me explain what I mean by that, not being a Cafeteria plan guru. As I understand it, if testing is failed, then the NHC's have no consequences -- their benefits are still excluded from income. The HCE's will have their benefits included in income. So isn't this just the same position they would be in anyway? They (the HCE's) are no WORSE off than they would be otherwise without the plan -- what's the real downside? I feel like I'm maybe missing something -- I'd be interested in any thoughts you may have. Thanks!"

"401k plan effective date 1/1/2024. No owners, but 50 plus HCEs based on their 2024 comp; current year ADP test (no match involved); full year compensation considered. Can I run the 2024 ADP test based on current year compensation or do I need to go back and get everyone's 2023 compensation?"

"The firm that I work for can't really decide how this adjustment should be made so I'll appeal to a larger audience and hope the flaming isn't too intense. 2024 calendar year plan, EOY valuation. 12/31/2024 assets $2,209,224. Before the amendment, the total maximum liability at 12/31/2024 is $2,095,478 ($1,911,601 FT + $183,877 TNC). After the amendment, the total maximum liability at 12/31/2024 is $3,465,035 ($1,911,601 FT + $1,553,434 TNC). The increased maximum liability due to the amendment is $1,369,557. After the amendment, the required minimum as of 12/31/2024 is $1,438,375, so this amount plus any interest discount as of the date of deposit is fully deductible, even if the adjusted deduction limit is smaller. Please correct me if that's wrong. If we pretend there is no reduction, the 2024 deduction limit would be $1,911,601 FT + (1,911,601 * 0.5) cushion + 1,553,434 TNC -- 2,209,224 assets = 2,211,612. What we can't agree on is where the increased liability is subtracted. Our software suggests that we'd subtract the increased liability from the max FT before calculating the 50% cushion: ($1,911,601 FT + ((1,911,601 -- 1,369,557) * 0.5) cushion + 1,553,434 TNC -- 2,209,224 assets = $1,526,833. Discussions have suggested that the increase liability should simply be subtracted from the unadjusted deduction limit, so $2,211,612 -- 1,369,557 = $842,055 (ignored since required minimum is higher). Some have even argued that there is no reduction since the FT does not increase due to the amendment, but that seems unreasonable. Would love any feedback you all can provide."

"I am an Orange County California employee and I plan to retire in 3 years with 25 years of service. I have a defined pension plan where I can retire after a certain number of years of service, at a certain age, with a certain income history and I'm eligible for a lifetime annuity (2.7% of my top 3 earning years times each year of service). I started this job 3 years into marriage (2001) and we divorced 10 years later (2011). My top 3 earning years were long after the divorce. 

"I remember being told by my attorney that we needed to hire a QDRO attorney but that was never done. I also remember calling the County retirement and being told the divorce had been reported to them and that I would not be able to collect my pension until the QDRO was complete. I have read online that my ex may not be entitled to any portion of my pension if I remarry, or if I remarry before I retire, or if I retire before the QDRO is complete. 

"I'll be engaged next month and I do plan on remarrying before I retire. Can anyone please confirm any of this for me, is it true, and that simple? If not true or that simple, can someone please explain what I can expect or should do in this situation (never did a QDRO, it's been 14 years since the divorce, and I plan to remarry)? She will not need any portion of my pension as she has done very well for herself these past 14 years, 17 years when I retire, and I will need it all. She has not remarried, if that matters."