david rigby

IRC 1563 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1563

What do you mean "merged plan"? Perhaps an oversimplified statement, a 5500 is required until the plan no longer exists. For example, suppose Plans A and B are both CY, and A merges into B effective 12/31/2011. Both plans must file a 5500 for the 2011 plan year. Probably, the 5500 for plan A would have zero particiapants and zero dollars at the end of the year, so that it will not exist on 01/01/2012 (no 5500 for the 2012 plan year).

"allowed?" That could be a scary thought. This "problem" may be related to inexperience of one analyst, rather than incompetence of that analyst's employer. Chill out, perhaps? The sponsor can probably solve this "problem" very easily, by submitting a letter stating they are making a contribution in the exact amount of the forfeiture account. If the analyst does not understand, then the sponsor calls the analyst's supervisor and gently identifies the training opportunity.

"taxpayer expense" might be a debatable point, as is "should"

Data as of 31-MAY-12 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.63 3.63 Aa 3.77 3.77 3.77 A 4.04 4.18 4.11 Baa 4.87 5.10 4.99 Avg 4.23 4.17 4.20 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.46 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.03 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.17

Sort of. OP indicates real estate in the plan, but does not indicate whether other assets are in the plan. Has any portion of the distribution commenced?

Depends. Has benefit been distributed? If so, "un-terminate" seems pretty difficult.

Only my mother is permitted to call me Dave.

Clarity needed: - The AE adjustment is not determined by the actuary, but by the plan document. - "most of the time" is in the eye of the beholder. Many plans do not define the AE adjustment as interest only, but also include mortality. And the plan's death benefit design might be a relevant factor in this distinction.

Huh? What does this mean?

Well............ this is Congress and the IRS/DOL, so "purpose" might be in the eye of the beholder. In general, there are a few purposes behind most statutes and regulations: - set a minimum level of "reporting" (ie, from the plan/employer to the government) - set a minimum level of "disclosure" (ie, from the plan/employer to the participants) - set minimum fiduciary standards - set standards for "non-discrimination" (usually objective, but not always) - set standards for eligibility (getting in the plan), vesting (getting a right to the benefit), and funding (paying for the plan) Others may add to this list. Other rules were changed or added with a specific eye on money: Congress wanted more tax revenue, so they tightened certain things. Not good design, just a different purpose. There are some rules that were added in response to a situation that had previously been overlooked, such as IRC 416 and IRC 401(a)(26). BTW, keep in mind the big-picture historical information that you find in your reading: the Studebaker situation and other pre-ERISA lack of standards, as many of the original parts of ERISA grew out of those experiences.

Since there is no 2014 table yet, perhaps you are willing to share what answer you received from your software provider. Inquiring minds want to know.

Just a few comments: - Taking into account cash-flow matching and expected benefit payments, can a discount rate be too conservative? - Does an auditor have any responsibility to point out a discount rate that is "too low"? (they will certainly point out the opposite)?

DOL reg. 2520.104b-1©.

Throw around some weight? It's EE's responsibility to provide complete and accurate information. Tell EE that she won't be covered at all without a last name? (hey, it's just a thought.)

Also note that the 70-1/2 RMD is absolute for an IRA (or combination of IRAs if the individual has more than one). Different for a qualified retirement plan (pension, profit-sharing, 401k, etc); typically, those plans specify that distribution must begin by the later of 70-1/2 or severance of employment, except for EEs who are "5% owners".

Accrued Benefit. See IRC 411(a)(7). Note the reference to Normal Retirement Age, which means that must be defined first. BTW, you might benefit from general background reading (if not alread) such as "Fundamentals of Private Pensions" (my copy is published by the Pension Research Council) or "Pension Planning" (published by Irwin).

Non-attorney comment looking in from the outside: seems likely that the IRS and/or bankruptcy court has dealt with the Q before.

There is a "firm deadline"; the Plan Administrator must include this person on the Form SSA filed for the plan year following the plan year of termination of employment, which is due 7 months after the close of that (second) plan year (75-day extension available), unless the participant has received a full distribution before the filing. The PA must also notify the participant ("you have a benefit under the plan...") on or before this filing date. It's possible the regular statements received by the participant ARE the notification to the participant. Also likely, the participant is responsible for keeping the plan advised of any address change.

May? Of course. Should? This plan sponsor might need some objective advice.

If FaceBook share price gains 23 cents per day for the rest of 2012, that will be a 12/31/2012 price that is ~90% higher than the opening price of $38. Not bad.

Are you suggesting there is a difference in payment date for "wired" versus "mailed"?

As always, check the plan document.

Correct.

Ultimately, the plan sponsor must choose the discount rate(s) for SFAS87/88/106/158 purposes. Frequently, the actuary is asked for a recommendation and/or the auditor blesses the choice. The IRS segment rates might be reasonable, or might produce a result similar to another reasonable rate. The 24-month smoothing aspect does not automatically mean such rates are (or are not) reasonable. [bTW, PBGC segment rates are similar to IRS segment rates, without 24-month smoothing.] Many auditors will focus on whether the method to choose a rate is objective and a reasonable reflection of market value. Using multiple rates does not invalidate the process. Possibly, some prior discussion might be relevant to you: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46127