david rigby

Amen!

Is the person desiring to engage in this transaction a member of Congress?

It's possible my copy of ERISA is out of date, but would this plan fall under ERISA section 4021(b)(9) or (b)(13)? If so, no PBGC coverage, not even optional.

While ADP testing is mentioned above, could the real issue be top-heavy? Just wondering.

The instructions for the Line 11a of the 2011 Schedule SB refer to Line 38a of the SB for the prior plan year. The 2010 SB has no Line 38a. I haven't found any prior discussions on this point. Any comments?

Data as of 30-APR-12 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.95 3.95 Aa 4.02 4.00 4.01 A 4.33 4.44 4.39 Baa 5.06 5.23 5.15 Avg 4.47 4.41 4.44 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.53 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.32 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.61

Wrong. It was not worth repeating.

1. Doesn't 415 define the maximum annuity as the lesser of (a) and (b)? So that, the maximum lump sum is based on that lesser amount? 2. Depends on plan definition(s). Doesn't IRC define J&S with reference to a spouse? If the plan pays a J&S to a non-spouse, will that cause 415 limit problems? Your example of 60/20/20/20 is NOT equivalent to a 100% J&S with the spouse.

Try this: 411(a)(4) says "all service... except" Then look at the remainder of (4), and (5) and (6) for help and cross references.

Just asking this question raises possible concerns. As stated, the issue of "insurable interest" is the correct first question. Even if that is OK, the amount of the life insurance could raise another question.

Have such "proceeds" have already been awarded by the court? What is the prospect for the amount changing due to appeal? What does your auditor say?

Just so the original questioner understands, you cannot do this in a Standard termination.

It may help to consider that the "plan" is not vested, the participants are; then apply the vesting provisions of plan A to all participants, unless the merger amendment identifies some other vesting schedule for B participants.

See page 7 of the 2011 Instructions for the 5500 for a description of the 80-120 rule. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html

Not knowing ages (and insurability) of the insured(s), it's impossible to know whether those premiums are high. This website is not a good place for such comparisons or discussions.

You did verify that the plan document provides for an allocation of assets? (I'm skeptical, because I've seen it done without proper documentation.)

I hear that Lew Alcindor was pretty good.

Is this relevant? http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...d=98350,00.html

Duplicate post: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=51179

Required? Yes, I agree with Tom's reading of the instructions. Real world: former participants do get letters from the SSA and ask about a possible benefit. It's a PITA, and everyone should avoid it. If you are the TPA, it is your job to minimize this, so that makes the reporting of D's required.

Before deriving "gross" pay, it's probably best to define it first.

It's just you.

Since the partial termination is unknowable now, follow the plan now. Maybe the plan will get additional administrative expense later, but so what?

Correct. However, if the prior plan was limited by the 415 % limit and the new plan can recognize greater compensation (up to the $ limitation), there might be value in such a plan.

Employees? Participants?