david rigby

Be careful with this simplified result: what if the plan is frozen? IMHO, it makes more sense to change nothing on the SSA records for this person. Later, upon "re-term", that person is either a death, a retiree, or a VT. All you really want is that the SSA has a correct answer to the Yes/No question: "is this person entitled to a benefit later?"

Just a thought: the plan administrator might be curious to determine if those checks are uncashed due to death of the recipient.

... and there are probably many reasons why the participant should not invest in that IPO.

When you searched IRC 416 and Reg. 1.416, did you find anything about vested benefits?

This might not be relevant to anyone else: neither the PBGC nor the IRS has any authority to define generally accepted actuarial principles.

Bingo. Sure, my copy of Jordan ("my precious") gathers dust, but it should be the ratio of N(12)'s.

D's?

The DOL "guy" is not a guy. It's Phyllis Borzi.

Just to be clear, does this sentence mean "defers beyond NRD"?

Yikes! These message boards do not serve well as a place for investment advice, except to offer some general guidelines. The big red flag to me is your desire to both retire and buy insurance. "Retirement" usually means you are focused on a steady stream of income, while insurance usually means you are protecting someone else (or perhaps an estate). Insurance does not generate income. Apples and oranges. Perhaps you need advice from someone who is selling only his/her advice, NOT selling insurance, annuities, stocks, bonds, etc.

Sorry, no opportunity to check the reg, but it sounds fishy to me (that's the technical term). Suppose the EE is unmarried at initial ASD, but is married when the restriction is removed. Not sure if this matters, just wondering.

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It's possible my copy of ERISA is out of date, but would this plan fall under ERISA section 4021(b)(9) or (b)(13)?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