david rigby

Also check to see if the plan has any provision that will permit an actuarial equivalent lump sum of these remaining payments.

What's your point?

The owner wants to delay his taxation as long as possible. The IRS (and by extension, those of us who are taxpayers) want him to pay taxes on the amounts that have previously been tax-deferred. It's time to buck up, and pay up.

Working or not, most periodic distributions are not eligible for rollover. As stated above, "...Congress expects you to take taxable distributions."

If at NRA and 100%, it may make sense to commence annuity distribution (especially if NRA = 62).

Unless they make payments directly to participants, why would an investment house/brokerage EVER need SSN's of participants? Perhaps they really want the EIN/PN for the plan?

Data as of 31-Jan-2013 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.90 3.90 Aa 3.98 3.94 3.96 A 4.20 4.24 4.22 Baa 4.75 4.93 4.84 Avg 4.31 4.25 4.28 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.58 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.39 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.71

If the "investment house" is not familiar with institutional/qualified plans, keep moving.

No matter what resolution, make sure you consider the future: what do you need to do to make sure this does not happen again?

Not if it's an ERISA plan. But, it can be amended to limit the number of years of service (for example, 30) included in the benefit formula.

There have been a few prior discussions on this topic. As I recall, at least one of them had a reasonable suggestion. Try using the Search function. Suggested key words include embezzle, embezzlement, embezzled, theft, etc.

I'm shocked. Shocked!

Very likely, the use of "retirement" refers to an event, not an eligibility.

Does anything trump 415?

I'll take a stab at this. Just my hunch: The third-party service provider is exactly that: third-party, not part of the original employment or NQ relationship. The responsibility for upholding the terms of the plan, and for tax withholding belongs to you, as the (former) employer, not to the external vendor. Thus, you should do whatever is necessary to make sure withholding is applied properly. If that means you run it thru your payroll, go ahead. (BTW, logistically, this should not be difficult.) Just make sure you don't inadvertently make this person an "active employee" for any other payroll-generated purposes.

At this link, http://benefitslink.com/index.html, look at "Events"

Before going to any extremes, consider whether there are other "advisors" that might be able to assist. For example, does the sponsor have an accountant or attorney that might be able to offer an opinion? Sure, this is an "end run", but it may produce a better result for the plan, and (indirectly) for the other participants.

Of course, before you resign, you did advise him of the problem, in writing, didn't you?

...in writing.

Just guessing, but it's likely the trustee is not a separate financial institution.

Here's hoping they charge DC plans an annual fee to pay for it! Stupid regulation! Stupid legislation!

While I doubt there is anything definitive, I'm skeptical that permitting such change, even if permitted by the Code, would be in the best interest of the Plan. Most actuaries will cringe at the thought of adding this to any plan. If my client asked about this, I would probably suggest that it's a bad idea. - As SoCal suggests, spouse signoff is important/mandatory. Also, the entire communication process between plan and retiree should be carefully planned. Remember: retirees don't like change, and spouses like it even less. - Don't forget to make sure this does not favor HCE's. - Finally, ask the actuary if this plan provision might lead to an increase in the plan's long-term cost, primarily due to revision of the actuary's assumptions about retirement patterns.

ERISA section 514 (29 USC 1114): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1144

I had a similar case last year. We followed the plan document. It is difficult to defend any other procedure.

A couple of thoughts: Sure typing is easy, but punctuation and capitalization are useful to the reader. BTW, if your question is a continuation of an earlier discussion, then appending your question to the original discussion thread is much better than starting a new thread.