Effen

Assuming the current accumulation rate is based on the 30-yr treasury rate, since the 3rd Segment rate stuff is in "(d)(4)" and the 30-yr treasury (old standard) is in "(d)(5)", doesn't this mean that the Plan needed to be amended by November 30, 2007 in order to use the 3rd Segment rate starting 1/1/2008? Seems to me since they didn't release this until 12/28, it would be difficult to use the 3rd segment rate as of 1/1/08. I guess you could change it mid year, but that seems like a pain. I suppose we need to keep using the 30-year treasury rate for 2008. Am I missing something?

FWIW, I had a situation last year where the client wanted to put real property into an escrow account to cover a distribution to an HCE. I had several discussion with head of the VCP/CAP program in my district who ran it past the national office and came back with a big "NO GO". They were very clear that real property is not acceptable. They said only cash money would be acceptable for the escrow solution.

Seems to me that since the fund knew a DRO was in the works, it should not have commenced payments to the participant. I'm not sure of the sites, but I believe it should have escrowed the payments for a reasonable time until the DRO issues were resolved. Also, did the plan get spousal consent to start the payments to the participant or did they hang their hat on the "he is single" hook? What ever you do, make sure the fund's counsel is on board.

I think Andy may be on to something. If this person terminates, I think they would be a Highly Compensated Former Employee, however, while they are active, they are a NHCE. Interesting... I would explain Andy's point to their ERISA attorney and ask him/her to make the ruling. I wouldn't want to be on record saying it was ok to pay it, but I would explain it to the client and their attorney and let them make the decision.

I agree with Rcline. If you searched your records the next step would be to have the employer check the payroll records and see if he ever worked there. If you have no record and the employer has no record, this person would need to prove they did work for your client and that they are entitled to a benefit. As far as seing an old SSA, I don't know of any easy way. Did you try the accountant? Often times they keep copies of old 5500s.

Andy, you might not be aware but commutation factors are back on the EA exams! The ban has been lifted! That said, I haven't thought about lump sum factors yet, but I will soon.

You mean other than asking the person who prepared or filed them for a copy? Why are you looking for them? Maybe there is another way to solve your "problem".

I have asked several attorneys this question and they all tell me "no". No one seemed too concerned about the need to add QOSA J&75 option, even if the option wasn't in the plan. Any attorneys want to chime in?

I think I would say "a", assuming the 120,000 415 limit properly reflects the fact he has < 10 years of service and participation. I think the 415 limit is a final check. Calc the benefit payable under the plan, then check it against the 415 limit. There is no vesting schedule applied to a 415 limit.

Thank you, that is helpful. Excuse my ignorance, but what does PEO mean?

What if it is a multiple employer DC plan? Assume many unrelated employers adopt the multiple employer plan. They all invest in various pooled accounts. Would that satisfy the "all the assets of which are available to pay the benefits claim of any eligible employee" requirement because they are pooled accounts, or because each dollar of each fund is allocated to an individual, it should be considered "seperate funding" and therefore each adopting employer should file a 5500? I'm looking at a multiple employer PS/401(k) plan that each employer picks their own employer ps allocation and matching formula. I'm having trouble determining if they should be filing one 5500 or if each employer should file their own 5500 since all of the money is allocated to individuals? The Plan document contains an exclusinve benefit rule that states "All contributions made by the Co-sponsor will be used for the exclusive benefit of the Participants who are Employees of the Co-sponsor and will not be used for nor diverted to any other purpose except the payment of the costs maintaining the plan." It seems to me that each co-sponsor should be filing their own 5500. Agree?

It may not be a 204(h) Notice, but there is notice requirement. Act Sec. 101. (j) NOTICE OF FUNDING-BASED LIMITATION ON CERTAIN FORMS OF DISTRIBUTION. -- --The plan administrator of a single-employer plan shall provide a written notice to plan participants and beneficiaries within 30 days -- (1) after the plan has become subject to a restriction described in paragraph (1) or (3) of section 206(g)), (2) in the case of a plan to which section 206(g)(4) applies, after the valuation date for the plan year described in section 206(g)(4)(B) for which the plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage for the plan year is less than 60 percent (or, if earlier, the date such percentage is deemed to be less than 60 percent under section 206(g)(7)), and (3) at such other time as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The notice required to be provided under this subsection shall be in writing, except that such notice may be in electronic or other form to the extent that such form is reasonably accessible to the recipient.

I would probably say they are SOL until 2008, but then I'm a bit conservative on this kind of thing.

Do a search of the board and you will find lots of creative solutions. I'm sorry to say there is no perfect answer. Have they really made an effort to find the person? Have they used a search firm to try and find them?

Come on, lets be realistic. Boston and New York should just play a best of 164 schedule since they are the only two teams that "anyone" cares about - at least those East of Syracuse and north of Jersey. The winner of those two would play the best of the other teams in the World Series. Or maybe the winner of the best of 164 just has home field advantage, and then they play each other again in a best of 7 for the World Series. I guess either would work. If you consider beating up your little sister an accomplishment, then you are ready to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan. They spend 2 - 9 times what other teams spend on payroll and then you celebrate like you accomplishment something when they beat them. Sorry, you guys are suppose to win and when you don't the rest of the country celebrates.

Double Post - See Defined Benefit Board

I will give it to the Sox. Beckett was incredible and the high prices Sox hitters finally appeared. I'm still not sure why they held Lofton at third, but once the next hitter hit into the DP, I knew the Sox were going to blow it open, which they did. I guess I just became a Rockies fan.

deleted due to mis-understanding - I was wondering what he was referring too. Thanks for putting my straight Belgarath. Now, can you do anything about the issues in the Middle East?

2 to 1 Tribe. Why is Red Sox nation suddenly so quite?

PPA in general will result in far fewer EA's, we won't need harder exams to accomplish that. If we did make the exams more difficult, it would be for the greater good of society. We would be just helping the next generation of workers to find another profession. Did the buggy whip manufactures keep training people once Ford started creating cheap autos? No reason to churn out more EA's, when there won't be anything for them to do.

Yes on the SAR (2006 5500) No on the PBGC funding notice (assuming you mean the 2007 notice) 2008 - who knows, add it to the list of things we are waiting for

I'm not sure I understand your question. A multi-employer plan is a negotiated plan, generally for union members. If someone isn't paying dues, they probably aren't a member of the union and therefore the employer is probably not making contributions on their behalf and therefore they wouldn't be benefiting. If you are thinking about discrimination issues, collectively bargained plans are generally given an automatic pass on most pension related discrimination issues. In other words, if an employer employs 75 people, 50 of those are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that negotiates contributions into a multi-employer plan. The other 25 are not union members and are not represented by the union during negotiations. The employer doesn't have to provide any retirement benefits for the 25 non bargained employees. The counter is also true. If the employer wanted to give the non-bargained employees 5 times as much as the union employees, that would be ok as well. There may be labor related issues in some states and there could be prevailing wage issues on some jobs, but those are generally not ERISA issues. Do you have a situation where the non-union workers are covered by a multi-employer plan? Can you be more specific about your situation.

Are they still playing baseball? Our season generally only lasts until May or so around here. Glad to see someone in this country still cares. Go Tribe! Did I miss something or were you referring to ASPPPPPA's conference as an "EA conference"?

I thought that was when you dreamed a lot about a couple of tee pees ..... oh wait, that is when you are too tense

Your right, "before, you completed the form, printed it out, and mailed it to the client for payment.", now you just complete the form and hit a button. No letter to write, no forms to mail, nothing to upload. Just hit the button and the client has the form. I agree the first year involves a little hand holding, but once that is behind you we've found things run fairly smoothly. We are on yr-2 with the system and have only had a few hand-holding calls. Most went very smoothly. We just spend our 15 minutes typing it in, and we're done. Not all change is bad, if you give it a chance. Ultimately what ever works best for you is the right answer. I was just pointing out that I don't find MyPAA all that difficult or problematic.