Mister Met

DB Plan. Participant over age 70 1/2 received a lump sum in 2015, with the RMD portion deemed to be not eligible for rollover. It was determined that due to an error on the administrator's part, $10,000 of the payment that was deemed to be an RMD and not eligible to be rolled over was in fact NOT an RMD and could have been rolled over. Participant received a 1099 for this payment. How could a situation like this be rectified?

So then if the distribution is 5/1/15, and the ppt turned age 70 1/2 in 2012, would this include MRDs for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015? A little confusing because ppt was active (and not a 5% owner) up until 5/1/15 and was not required to receive anything until now. Thanks.

Cash balance plan, lump sum is available. Ppt is not 5% owner. Ppt terminates from active employment at age 73 and takes a full lump sum distribution immediately. Is a portion of this distribution considered an RMD and therefore not permitted to be rolled over? Required beginning date under the plan is later of age 70 1/2 and retirement date.

They have been reporting on FASB basis, just didn't convert from FAS 132R. On the actuarial side.

If an employer were to adopt FAS 158 late (meaning, now), how would this be accounted for? Would it be a transition obligation going back to when it should have been adopted? Or something else?

Ppt. could have started collecting in 2005, but is now starting to collect an annuity in 2013. What interest rate is used to accumulate the missed payments to now - interest rate from 2005, or current rate? Or just a "reasonable" rate?

Earlier this year, I saw that the proposed federal budget included that $3 million cap on retirement plan benefits for wealthy individuals. While I would assume it to be unlikely that the final budget would include this provision exactly as currently proposed (or if at all), I was wondering if anyone knows when the budget must be finalized - I was thinking about when this could come into play. Thank you

How can I be alerted to IRS rulings, notices, rev procs, etc. when they come out? Does the IRS newswire have these?

cash balance plan ppt is age 70 3-year average comp is 250k (2013, 2012, 2011) 415 dollar limit of $205,000, actuarially increased from 65 to 70 exceeds the $250,000 comp limit cash balance account is $3 million life annuity under plan's formula without regard to 415 is $257,000/year plan's actuarial equivalence is 3-segment rates/IRS mortality for 2013 Is the max 415 lump sum equal to the lesser of 1. $3 million 2. $250,000 x lump sum factor using 5.5% 3. $250,000 x lump sum factor using plan's basis? thanks

The relevant eligibility criterion is attainment of 73 points, but no age requirement is attached to this.

Plan doc wording says that for a ppt who meets the service but not age requirement for an ER benefit, he may receive an ER benefit based on a table of ER factors in the doc that starts at age 50 once the age requirement is met. The ppt in question would be eligible at age 49 based on the wording in the doc. Does the fact that the referenced table starts at age 50 trump the apparent eligibility at age 49? Or would we extrapolate (I guess) back to age 49? Thanks

What is the rationale for taking an existing DB plan and splitting it up in 2 separate plans - 1 for actives and 1 for inactives? I know that this leads to additional administrative costs (two 5500's, plan documents, etc.) but what is the advantage?

How can I determine if a cash balance plan's benefit is in excess of 415? Do we just look at the account balance when they retire, or limit the service credit for each year (or both?) Example, the plan's service credit for someone age age 50 is $125,000, NRA is 62. Max 415 annuity at 62 is $200,000/year at age 62. I can determine the max 415 lum at retirement (calculate LS at 5.5%, etc.)m but how do we do it for an individual year?

In a case like this where there is a PFB being applied, let's say we told client to make $300,000 by 9/15/12 to satisfy (MRC-PFB) but instead they made $300,000 on 6/15/12, and therefore the contributions discounted to valdate were greater than (MRC less PFB)at valdate due to the earlier timing of contribution, would the 3 months fewer discounting on $300,000 then not be included in 38b?

This year, they added an additional item 38b to the 2011 Schedule SB. What would 38b) be here? 34) Minimum required contribution , before reflecting PFB = $277,000 35) Prefunding Balance = $2,000 36) Additional cash requirement = 34) minus 35) = $275,000 37) Contributions discounted to valuation date = $280,000 38a) Excess of 37 over 36 = $5,000 38b) = portion of 38a attributable to use of PFB= ?? If the PFB was not used, the excess in 38a) would have been $3,000. So is 38b) just then the PFB of $2,000? Thanks