I'm looking for annuirty rates for ages 60 - 70 -- life only and joint and 100% survivor -- 1983 Individual Annuity for Females projectd to 2000 by scale G with 6% interest. Anyone have a clue as to where I could obtain this table?

Thanks,

Pat

If a DB plan requires a participant to obtain spousal consent to name someone other than the spouse as the beneficiary for a post-retirement lump sum death benefit, must a married alernate payee with a separate interest also provide spousal consent to name someone other the the AP's spouse as beneficiary?

My research indicates that an employer may reduce a 100% QPSA to a 50% QPSA with respect to all service without violating 411(d)(6) or giving a 204(h) notice, because the QPSA is an ancillary benefit.

The reduction would apply to deaths occurring after the date of the amendment, to both active and vested terminated participants.

This is a fully subsidized mandatory QPSA (waiver not allowed) in a defined benefit plan.

This answer seems right but leaves me uncomfortable.

Do you agree or disagree with this answer or know of something I've missed?

1 person DB plan (takeover) had the unfortunate overused 10% x YOS formula, and PVAB outstripped assets by 2:1. Divorce occurs, and QDRO dictated split of plan assets 50/50. Benefits were not split 50/50 as this would mean the alternate payee spouse gets all plan assets, so assets were split 50/50. As of a certain date, spouse was paid 50% of FMV assets. If benefit offset for plan sponsor due to QDRO is determined by the actuarial equivalent of the distribution amount, the underfunding becomes worse, because assets are cut in half, and benefits have only been reduced by 1/4. Can one reason somehow that the benefit offset should be half the accrued benefit, as this would help reduce the 412 funding? Doesn't seem possible, but thought I would solicit some advice. Should the QDRO have been worded that she (alternate payee) is receiving half the AB, but the "allocation" is only half to reflect the extent funded (as discussed in other threads on this message board relating to plan termination)? I suppose this still would not be valid for 412 purposes.

If plan termination is the only answer for this plan's problems, then would future DB plan's 415 offset be determined by actual distributions to participant and alternate payee, or accrued benefits under the plan?

May a municipal employer, that has provided long term disability insurance to all of its municipal employees, use a state statute (NJSA 40A:14-154) to reduce and eliminate

LTD benefits to only its municipal police officers?

Historically, the municipal employer had purchased group long term disability insurance for all of its employees. During the 1980's, an arbitrator determined that the municipal employer did not purchase the proper policy according to a police union collective bargaining agreement.

The arbitrator ordered the municipal employer to make any disabled police officer applying for LTD whole according to the CBA by making the payments directly from the municipal

budget rather than from collecting from the insurance carrier.

What parts of the IRC would be applicable to help the disabled police officers from the employer using this state

statute from reducing and/or eliminating their LTD benefits?

Any thoughts out there??

A one-man db plan due to huge losses has become greatly underfunded. Is there any exception to the minimum funding requirements? Does the participant have to terminate (and if so, could they waive the underfunding liability)? Could they simply reduce their own benefit?

C-corp. sponsors an esop and esop owns 40% of shares.

C-Corp. has one 60% individual owner (and esop owns the other 40%).

The 60% individual owner would like to retire and has a potential buyer in an employee who is also a participant in the ESOP.

Once the sale goes through, i believe the employee (who will become 60% owner) can still participate in esop. My logic is that the employee was not an owner prior to or on the date the 1042 transaction and esop was set up (3 years ago).

In addition, I do not think the original owner's 1042 transaction is tainted in any way.

Do you agree???

Thanks

Just looking for opinions and thoughts here....Would you say that an S-corp ESOP that doesn't allow distributions to terminees until after the stock acquisition loan is fully repaid abusive? Probably not, but would your answer change if the note was a 30-year note? Would it cause further concern if the plan provided for 5-year cliff vesting with no credit for service prior to the plan? Is a 5% fixed loan rate reasonable? Would you be involved with a case like this in any way?

Small employer sponsors a DB plan that covers both union and nonunion employees. Small employer is bought out, and mega company immediately wants to terminate the DB plan. That is the modus operandi for all their acquisitions. However, the collective bargaining agreement prohibits mega from terminating the plan with respect to the union employees.

So, Mega wants to terminate the nonunion portion of the plan. Is there such a thing as terminating a portion of a DB plan? Mega knows it can do a spinoff and termination, but that will involve negotiations over how assets are allocated between plans ( original and spinoff).

If is clear that Mega can cease accruals for nonunion participants, and exclude them from coverage under the plan. But can it make a distribution to the nonunion participants because it has "terminated" their "portion" of the plan thereby creating a distributable event? No one's employment is being terminated.

There are good reasons not to terminate a plan now; there are good reasons to do the spinoff. However, the employer has good reasons for wanting to execute the termination of the nonunion portion of the plan and distribute assets. Any suggestions?

I am fairly new to the FAS106 arena, so please be kind. My client has a self insured medical plan and pays the stop loss premiums. Do I need to value both the medical claims and the stop loss premiums?

Somebody is asking me the following question about a problem takeover plan that is being redesigned.

Plan provides that participants get the greater of two formulas, one that is a target benefit formula that by itself would be exempt from the gateway, and a formula based on age that meets the smoothly increasing, broadly available exemption. All participants get the greater of the two.

Question: Is this plan subject to the 3/1 or 5% gateway?

I say yes, because even though each component would be exempt, the combined plan would not be a safe harbor so the mutliple formula exemption for safe harbor plans would not apply, and the gateway regulations seen to preclude restructing into component plans to aboid the gateway requirement.

This of course assumes that the plan could not pass the general test on a contributions basis.

Opinions?

I'm getting ready to start studying for my C1 exam and I am interested in joining a study group and was wondering if anyone new if there were any study groups available to join in the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky area

Thank You.

Can anyone give me the correct interpretation of the IRS language in the cross-testing regs (DC) for "broadly available allocation rates" where it states under 1.401(a)(4)-8(b)(1)(iii)......."plan is currently available during plan year to a group of employees that satisifes section 410(b) - (without regard to the average benefits percentage test of 1.410(b)-5). Does this mean you can't use the ABT to satisfy the broadly available requirement ? or merely that you ignore the average benefits percentage test but may still pass under ABT assuming you meet remaining ABT requirements like reasonable classification and safe-harbor threshold % using NHCE concentration table ?

Questioning whether HIPAA prevents an employer from denying a new employee the option to enroll an overage dependent who is totally disabled? Would this constitute a violation of the portability aspect of HIPAA? Thanks!

A plan which was an employer-directed profit sharing plan holds an asset that at one time had a market value of $0. The plan added 401(k) and became participant-directed, and the asset was dropped from the books because it had no value. However, several years later, this asset has now increased to $75,000. How do we allocate it to participants? What should be done when a plan's asset becomes worthless? How long do you keep a worthless asset on the books?

As I read it,

EGTRRA changed things a little bit

The adjustments are now based using the quarter starting July 1, 2001.

The CPI-U for this period was

July 2001 177.5

Aug 2001 177.5

Sept 2001 178.3

Total 533.3

Currently the values are

Feb 2003 183.1

Mar 2003 184.2

Apr 2003 183.8 -just released today, it actually dropped

Total 551.1

so the indexed rate for the 401(A)(17) limit would be

200,000 * (551.1 / 533.3) = 206,675

EGTRRA says the increase will be in increments of 5000, so based on that the comp limit will be 205,000 next year.

Of course, the actual values used will be based on the data for the period July - Sept 2003, but this gives an idea how things currently stand.

Can an HCE elect to waive his right to receive a 3% non-elective safe harbor contribution?

Can an HCE elect to waive his right to receive a 3% non-elective safe harbor contribution?

Is a self-funded VEBA that is established by a group of "unrelated employers who are engaged in the same line of business in the same geographic locale" (VEBA membership reqt.) to provide group health benefits to the employees of those employers also a MEWA since it is also "welfare benefit plan which is established for the purpose of providing a welfare benefit to the employees of two or more unrelated employers"?

The VEBA is not established under a collective bargaining agreement, by a rural electric cooperative, or by a rural telephone cooperative association.

Thanks.

Would an amendment ceasing benefit accruals effective 8/1/03 violate 411(d)(6) by limiting 2003 plan year compensation to pre-8/1/03 compensation?

Assume a calendar year accumulation plan with a benefit of 2% of plan year compensation; the full benefit is provided with 1000 HOS; and no benefit with less than 1000 HOS.

If this would be allowed in a money purchase plan (and I believe it would), is there any reason it would not be allowed in a defined benefit plan?

The amendment would not violate the double-proration rule in 2530.204-2(d) or the anti-cutback rule in 1.411(a)-7©(5). Neither discrimination nor top heavy is a consideration.