david rigby

A question for the employer's lawyer. The legal advice you get on these Message Boards is worth exactly what you pay for it.

I recall a Gray Book (or perhaps Green Book?) question on this topic. Could not find it in my copies, but the net effect was that the IRS (DOL?) did not care about the one-day, as long as the intent of the sponsor is clear. Not sure if it's relevant, but it may have been pre-PPA. However, if your documentation is clearly 1/1/12, the safe approach is to use it. Perhaps you get 2012 funding = zero?

I was mildly surprised to see that the article Tom cited says yes. After further thought, I still have a concern about insurable interest. Note that the cited article refers to the donor as a "regular" donor to the charity. What if that "regular" characteristic does not exist? I don't claim to have an answer, just some caution.

Data as of 31-DEC-12 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.67 3.67 Aa 3.81 3.69 3.75 A 4.04 3.99 4.02 Baa 4.57 4.69 4.63 Avg 4.14 4.01 4.08 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.50 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.20 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.46

Here is a related discussion http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=52212

... depending on the actual plan provisions.

What does the plan say? Absent any specific instructions in the plan, what precedent has been used? If no precedent, the PA might consider (1) amending the plan, or (2) adopting formal written administrative procedures for this question.

You may want to be practical. There may be good reasons to omit both SSN and DOB from the QDRO, since it is a public document.

The link above is the best place to go for (almost) any mortality table. But, as Mike correctly points out, if you need more than just the table, you might need an actuary to help you identify the best way to use the table.

Yes. Please re-read. It should say "fifth anniversary of plan participation". If the plan does not say this, but uses 5 YOS, then the plan is not in compliance with ERISA and Internal Revenue Code.

Not exactly on point, this is the only Gray Book Q&A that seems even close to your question: Gray Book QUESTION 2007-10 Deductible Limit: Section 404(a)(7) Compensation with Elective Deferrals An employer sponsors a defined benefit plan and a profit sharing plan. Some employees are only eligible to make unmatched deferrals under the CODA in the profit sharing plan. Of that group, some choose to defer and some choose not to do so. IRC §404(n) makes it clear that any deferrals actually made are not subject to the combined plan limit of §404©(7) and are not taken into account in applying that limitation to any other contributions. But, it is not clear whether or not compensation paid to employees who make deferrals (or are eligible to make deferrals) is taken into account in applying §404(a)(7). a) Should the compensation of an employee (who is not a DB plan participant) who defers under a profit sharing plan be taken into account in calculating the combined plan limit if that deferral is the only allocation of the employee? b) Should the compensation of an employee (who is not a DB plan participant) who is eligible to defer under a profit sharing plan be taken into account in calculating the combined plan limit even if no deferral for the year is actually made and no other allocation is provided? c) Would the answers to a) and b) be any different if the plan provided matching contributions for all deferrals? RESPONSE a) Yes. b) No. c) No. Copyright © 2007, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

You may also want to get your fee paid, first.

Might this really be a granddaughter? (Grand)Daughter is in witness protection program? Another possibility? after diligent search, the PA is unable to locate (or even identify) any such person as the "alleged" beneficiary, so the benefit is forfeited until such time as the person appears?

Don't forget that most plans say a participant who is rehired before the actual distribution no longer has a distributable event, or something like that.

Well, not anything you want. You probably can't name it the IBM Pension Plan. Just don't pick something that could be confusing.

In addition to Andy's advice, the answer to your title question is (probably) YES.

Derrin Watson's Q&A column: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer The questions are in chronological order, most recent first. Start with No. 315.

No criticism of Peter, but just an opinion: Any process/system should consider the unmarried participant who later gets married. In many cases, the use of a computer-based system may encourage some particiapnts to assume "updates will be automatic", so that participant will not provide any notification to anyone when the marital status changes.

I'll assume you refer to the FAS87/106/158 discount rate. (OK, it's now ASC 715.) A few thoughts, that you can use or ignore: 1. Note that the actuary uses the discount rate, but does not choose it. The party responsible for the discount rate is the plan sponsor who must put FAS87/106/158 disclosure items in its financial statement. For this reason, many sponsors have their auditor review (but not choose) the discount rate. Most of the auditors I deal with prefer to review the process of choosing a rate, rather than the rate itself. 2. I recommend a particular process to my clients, some of whom use it. 3. Some people think that "reasonableness" is measured by "what is everyone else doing". I'm strongly opposed to that as a definition.

Effen is correct. (In case you did not know, he is quoting from IRS regulation 1.416-1.) To expand a bit on his comment, most tests will include some generic preliminary statements about what you (the test-taker) should assume. Very common is a statement that you should assume/apply the regulations and/or statute in effect at X date. Note that since regs and/or statutes generally define minimums or maximums, the statement means you should not infer anything beyond the min or max contained in the applicable reg or statute.

Does the plan answer your question? BTW, the regulatory rule for "can't distribute if ever over $5K" no longer applies, unless your plan still uses it.

Mike's caution is worthwhile. The "usual" method is .02 x 25 x $3K = $1500, then multiply that result by a fraction of PS(past service) / TS(total projected service at NRD). However, some plans use minor variations, for example a maximum on TS in the above fraction. Read plan definitions carefully.

Who is "we"?

Was any portion contributed after the end of the plan year? If so, amend the tax return to have that portion deducted in the subsequent tax year.

Data as of 30-NOV-12 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.58 3.58 Aa 3.66 3.58 3.62 A 3.89 3.95 3.92 Baa 4.48 4.65 4.57 Avg 4.01 3.94 3.98 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.43 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.05 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.28