david rigby

Just in case you have not seen this, IRS Notice 2013-49, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-49.pdf. (Sorry, have not seen the tables posted in spreadsheet format yet.)

Don't forget vesting under partial termination. Don't forget about PBGC reportable events.

In these days of concern for personal security, why would anyone want to use the full SSN? As an example, IRC 414(p) defines the information required in a QDRO, including the mailing address of the alternate payee. This is a public document, so including mailing address might be a very bad thing in the case of domestic violence, or including SSN makes that available to the world. Therefore, everyone now understands that certain information can (should) omitted from public documents for privacy/security reasons. Now, extend this principle to your question. IMHO, best practice will avoid using the full SSN on a statement.

Well, parts of 401(a). See for example, 401(a)(5)(G), or 401(a)(10), 401(a)(24), 401(a)(26).

I'll try. Agree that the instructions do not answer your question. I also reviewed the Gray Book; nothing on point. Although it's been many years since I did this, my action would be to err on the side of caution and file the Form 5310A. Even if not needed, I don't think it would hurt.

Data as of 28-JUN-13 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.32 4.32 Aa 4.41 4.46 4.44 A 4.67 4.68 4.68 Baa 5.23 5.46 5.35 Avg 4.77 4.73 4.75 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.88 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.89 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.15

Hojo has the correct link to the PBGC book. However, notice two things: in the above quote, use of the word "include" see the statute (ERISA section 4021, Plans Covered). Section 4021©(2)(B) uses even broader language: "...includes, but is not limited to..." Probably the best action is to request a PBGC determination of coverage (page 7 of the above link).

Note, if there is no mention of the plan in the buy-sell agreement, default plan provisions may apply, and may be contrary to the desire expressed in the original post.

Is age 50 the plan-defined minimum age requirement? If so, extrapolation to an earlier age is not appropriate. If not, then Andy's advice is the best approach.

In most plans (at least most that I see), the Plan Administrator (capital letters important) wears more than one hat. He/she is also an employee (perhaps owner) of the Employer/sponsor. Even if the PA has the limited fiduciary responsibility posited in the original post, those other hats might alter the result.

Getting (not being) married is the key. Suppose the EE got married, got divorced. It's likely the marriage will invalidate the original beneficiary designation, but the divorce will not reinstate the original.

For us non-attorneys, the dictionary at law.com might help. putative adj. commonly believed, supposed or claimed. Thus a putative father is one believed to be the father unless proved otherwise, a putative marriage is one that is accepted as legal when in reality it was not lawful (e.g. due to failure to complete a prior divorce).

No. Contributions on the SB must be for the plan year. You might consider whether the 2011 SB should be amended. Gray Book Q&A 2003-4 has a similar discussion, and part of the answer is: "No. A contribution made in 2002 to a calendar year plan cannot be included on the 2003 Schedule B."

BTW, this is merely a specific example of a general situation. That is, what procedure(s) does the PA use to verify anything? For example, birth certificate, marriage license, death certificate, etc.

Is it important to get HCE's into catch up?

Participants. Not employees.

Additional background information, including link to IRS memorandum, http://erisafile.com/blog/2012/06/14/more-on-using-a-401k-rollover-to-buy-a-business/

First part: not sure, but ask the son when his parents divorced or his mother died. Second part: birth certificate.

The plan should not have to bear unreasonable costs of this "research".

Tom, I've read your question much differently than implied by either of the above answers. Can you rephrase? For example, who is "they"? Which plan are you talking about? etc.

BTW, if not already, get on Linkedin.com

Are in the review stage? Just send it back with a correction?

I agree with Effen, putting a future termination date in the plan seems pointless, and might be an unnecessary "red flag". On a practical level, a date many years in the future might be irrelevant, but the original post implies something much less. w/r/t termination on "occurrence of a specified event", just a guess: the IRS would view such provisison with skepticism but might consider it permissible. (If bankruptcy is the event in question, it's pretty common to have that in plan documents.)

IMHO, no. The plan participant has a right to a particular benefit at a particular point in time. 411d6 applies.

IMHO, no. It's common.