david rigby

No. (iv) part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments (not less frequently than annually) made for the life (or life expectancy) of the employee or the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of such employee and his designated beneficiary

Most, but not all risk is transferred to the EE. Effectively, the EE assumes the investment risk, but the longevity risk remains with the ER. BTW, this also means that administrative expenses paid by the plan will be paid by the participants.

Does IRC 72(t)(2)(A)(iv) help?

FYI, there have been two Q&A's on this topic in the BlueBook over the last few years. Not exactly on point, but you can use them to understand the PBGC reasoning, and support the answer from Effen above: PBGC Blue Book 2007-8 QUESTION 8 Standard Terminations: Determination of Majority Owner Status PBGC’s standard termination regulations provide that a majority owner (based on a 50% or more ownership interest taking into account the constructive ownership rules) may elect to forgo receipt of his or her plan benefits to the extent necessary to enable the plan to satisfy all other plan benefits (29 CFR §§ 4041.2, .21(b)(2)). Assume that two or more participants are each substantial owners, but not majority owners, and together have a 50% or greater ownership interest. Assume further that they agree among themselves that they will each elect such an alternative treatment under the majority owner rules. May they elect the alternative treatment? RESPONSE: No. To be eligible to elect an alternative treatment under the majority owner rules, a participant must be a majority owner (taking into account the constructive ownership rules). There is no aggregation of ownership interests among participants (except to the extent provided under the constructive ownership rules). PBGC Blue Book 2013-5 QUESTION 5 Standard Terminations: New Definition of Majority Owner PPA amended ERISA section 4022(b)(5) to change the limitations on guaranteed benefits for “substantial” owners. In doing so it substituted a new definition of “majority” owner. Such an owner is defined using a 60 month look-back - i.e. a person that had the requisite ownership in the preceding 60 months is considered a majority owner and subject to the phase-in. Section 4041.21(b)(2) of PBGC’s regulations on Termination of Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR Part 4041) provides that a majority owner may waive a portion of his benefit to the extent needed to allow an underfunded plan to terminate in a standard termination. Regulation §4041.2 defines majority owner, and in doing so makes no mention of a look-back. Indeed, in the 2004 Blue book, Q5, the PBGC made it clear that a participant has to be a majority owner at the time of the waiver for the waiver to be valid. Did the PPA change to ERISA section 4022(b)(5) change the definition of majority owner for purposes of a majority owner waiver on plan termination to now include a 60-month look-back? RESPONSE No. The preamble to the existing regulation explained that the majority owner definition in the regulation had been developed using the substantial owner definition and specifically did not incorporate the 60 month look-back. The changes in PPA were aimed at other purposes and create no compelling reason to modify the regulation to change the individuals who are permitted to waive benefits.

I have not verified this one, but note that many of the exemptions are predicated on compliance with the pre-ERISA statute.

I think QDROphile is correct here. It seems that this must be a distribution, with 1099. This should be the case even if the plan has the ability (and plan provisions) to record the distribution without any money being sent or a check produced.

Many participants receive an annual statement, showing the accrued benefit. Many plan sponsors provide more detailed estimates (including optional forms) only when the participant applies for retirement benefits.

Well, someone believes in punctuation.

Sorry, I did not retrieve April 30 rates. Here is May 1: Data as of 01-MAY-13 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.65 3.65 Aa 3.65 3.71 3.68 A 3.92 3.96 3.94 Baa 4.39 4.57 4.48 Avg 3.99 3.97 3.98 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.39 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.04 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.36 Provided by another reader: Data as of 30-April-2013 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.70 3.70 Aa 3.70 3.74 3.72 A 3.96 4.01 3.99 Baa 4.43 4.62 4.53 Avg 4.03 4.02 4.03 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.40 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.07 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.41

Not to express doubt about Tom's advice, but ... this situation screams to get the original questions answered by the plan sponsor's tax advisor or legal counsel.

If the plan overpaid benefits, it should make an attempt to recover. There have been some previous discussion threads about this.

Why have a cash balance plan without a lump sum option? (It's just rhetorical; no reply expected.)

Sentence too long.

Happy 18th birthday to BenefitsLink. Attaboy, Dave!

It may help to read the actual DOL regulation. 2520.104b-1, section ©. That section was originally effective in 1997, but this link takes you to the 2002 revision. (As usual, DOL regs are not "reader-friendly"; look for "(c) Disclosure through electronic media".) http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=19158&AgencyId=8&DocumentType=2

I saw that also. However, it appears the OP is requesting a copy of the plan document. IRA: please clarify what informaiton you are requesting.

Several prior discussion threads. See IRC 414(l). (That's a lower case L.)

"Social Security" is really multiple programs. OASI (old age security insurance) has morphed into OASDHI (now including Disability and Health).

Consider also that use of an intranet may require only one copy, that can be read (and perhaps printed) by any user on the intranet. For those without access to the intranet, a paper copy might be required.

Discrimination testing is about comparing HCEs to NHCEs, not about comparing within either of those classes. (Possible exception: Key employees)

Nothing is certain in bankruptcy. In any Distress Termination, the PBGC will go after any (and all) assets it can. Before, during and after the termination. No doubt about it: the plan sponsor needs legal counsel familiar with PBGC procedures.

Please re-phrase. What "money"? Collected by whom? etc.

TEFRA was passed in 1982, adding IRC 416 top-heavy rules, but they were first effective for PY beginning after 12/31/1983.

Who is "they" and what does "gave" mean? For example, if there is written Board action, then you may already have the proper authorization (although may not yet have completed the formal plan amendment).