david rigby

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?

No matter when the plan is terminated, plan assets must be liquid.

In case you did not notice, the important word in the above posts is "beneficiary", and the context is "death benefit". Your turn now.

1099-R? If being paid under plan EIN, and using a 1099-R, that looks a lot like a plan distribution to me. Presumably, this extra payment will be rollable?

That's a good question, they may not be the same company but they definitely are in the same controlled group. It could be an umbrella company. Is controlled group the relevant question? (Don't know, just asking.)

Data as of 30-MAR-12 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.04 4.04 Aa 4.24 4.20 4.22 A 4.54 4.61 4.58 Baa 5.20 5.40 5.30 Avg 4.66 4.56 4.61 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.70 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.61 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.90

So what you're saying is that if the employee requests a distribution, they employer has to oblige without the completion of the QDRO process? NO, that is definitely not what QDROphile stated, nor implied.

I did not see a reference to 414 (but I could be mistaken). The reg refers to active participants in the plan. Since that reg was probably written long before any bureaucrat anticipated the concept of a frozen plan, my hunch is they were thinking "actively accruing benefits". If I get a chance, I'll ask the question next week.

Probably yes. Read PBGC reg. 4043.23 (including definition of "active participant") and instructions for Form 10.