david rigby

Court of Appeals upholds the District Court: http://www.mhco.com/Library/Articles/2012/...ont_083012.html

...depending on what the plan says.

Would this be (or have the potential to be) discriminatory? If so, perhpas you can amend the plan to include quarterly valuations for all participants. Or, make it daily.

Where is Ned Ryerson? At age 30, with "another baby on the way", your primary concern should be protection for your family. That probably means get as much term life as you can afford, and leave behind your whole life policy. Think about why we have insurance, and you'll quickly realize that you don't need the same level of insurance at age 70 that you need now.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=246780,00.html

Look at 4006(a)(3)(E)(iv). I think it is unchanged by MAP21, and no change is needed.

It might be both. Clearly, no 2010 contribution can be allocated to employees who were not participants (we're assuming the PY=CY) in the 2010 PY. But this is 2012; why are we discussing a 2010 PY contribution? Might be some other relevant facts?

See article beginning on page 5. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rne_sum06.pdf#page=5

Released 08/16/12 http://benefitslink.com/src/irs/notice2012-55.pdf

Caution. It may not be a wash. There may be a fee charged by the IRA custodian. And there might also be a fee charged for payment from that account.

There are other ways of locating people. Friends, relatives, former co-workers, internet search services. Also, consider that this person might know of the overpayment and is intentionally "making himself scarce". If so, locating him might be the easiest part of collecting.

No. This is the text of Act section 40211©. [Page 446 of the 584-page PDF document on Thomas or the GPO website.] However, if your question means "will there be an alternative yield curve using 25-year averages?", there is no indication of that in the statute.

You are correct about the IRS program. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=110108,00.html BTW, anecdatal comments (on these message boards) indicate that the IRS program does not have a great success record. I"m not aware of any PBGC letter forwarding program, but you can search: http://search.pbgc.gov/mp/mp.aspx This is the SSA program http://www.socialsecurity.gov/foia/html/ltrfwding.htm

If you mean "involuntarily cashed out", the answer is no.

... by making sure the plan is specific? Presumably you are not implying PA discretion.

I'll take a shot. 1. don't know. good question. 2. don't know. good question. 3. Yes.

Perhaps EtK is more knowledgeable in this area than I. Previously, I was told that a minor is a minor, without regard to age. Also told that a QP should (in general) pay a benefit due a minor by paying to the guardian of the estate FBO that minor, without regard to whether that person is guardian of the person. Am I off-base?

Data as of 31-JUL-12 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.29 3.29 Aa 3.50 3.39 3.45 A 3.89 3.82 3.86 Baa 4.77 4.79 4.78 Avg 4.05 3.82 3.94 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.42 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 0.99 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.20

For further reading, there are a few similar discussion threads. Try using the Search function; suggested key words are embezzle, embezzle, theft, fraud. BTW, there might be a difference between "steals money from the plan sponsor" and "steals from the Plan". Just covering all the bases.

I once did a little bit (but not enough) research on this. My brief overview made me wonder if the exempt portion applies only to certain plans: PA govt. plans and/or plans that were domiciled in PA. I state no conclusions, only warn you to be careful of the terminology used.

Difficult to say. It might also depend on whether you do any other business with the vendor. My employer provides this service, and the fee can vary widely based on many factors. Call if you want more information.

Is this person one of the Top 25?

Perhaps I misunderstand the facts. If prior years were TH but the TH rules were not followed (affecting both current and former participants), it seems prudent to address those years before addressing the current year.

There might be something to learn here for the future.

NQ? Likely, there is no regulatory prohibition (if that is the essence of your question). There might be some prohibition in the bylaws of A.