david rigby

I agree with AtA, SoCal, AndyH, and Effen. Just my opinion: 1. Confirm that the plan did permit a J&S with a non-spouse (I'm skeptical; in 30+ years, I've never seen this, and I've seen a lot of plans). Your 2:48pm post indicates you have confirmed this. 2. If the plan is silent on permitted changes, then the answer is "no changes are permitted". That would preclude amending the plan to add the ability to change, since such amendment could not reduce any rights already in existence. 3. If the plan already permits a change (again, very doubtful), does the first contingent annuitant get nothing? I doubt that also.

It's been there since 1974. Original ERISA language.

Similar discussion http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=50202

1. See (1) above from QDROphile. 2. Read it again.

Keep your documentation of the trustee(s) accurate.

http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-31_IRB/ar07.html

Depend on your relationship to the plan.Didn't the plan (or the plan's trustee, not the company) make the distribution? Seems like the 1099R should show the ID number(s) of the plan, and the SSN of the recipient.

Does this plan have a similar prior event? If not, perhaps it's an opportunity to create, document, and maintain a new administrative interpretation.

State restrictions? who cares? It's simply irresponsible to put at risk the SSN of someone else. In addition to being stupid, it might be an opportunity to get sued, even if your action is not the utlimate cause of identity theft. (BTW, do states have any authority over e-mail?)

Not sure if this is definitive, but look at Q&A15 from 2005 BlueBook: http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2005bluebook.pdf "Similarly, an individual with respect to whom the plan has benefit liabilities and any alternate payees with respect to that individual would be counted as one participant."

Any purchase of a commercial annuity by a DB plan must include all relevant provisions in the plan, including (for example) early retirement, J&S conversion factors, etc. Since the annuity must "mimic" the plan, that includes the RMD requirements. BTW, see Reg. 1.401(a)(9)-6, Q&A4.

Link?

Are you interested in adopting me?

But it's still late! - See Line 20b on Sch SB - interest penalty

duplicate post: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=50485&hl=

No. That table is the IRS summary, which they update simultaneously when they release the Notice each month.

4. Public relations debacle.

I could not locate any such form number. However, see page 4 of the 2011 Michigan Income Tax Withholding Guide for instructions on voluntary withholding: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/taxes/44...AL_336590_7.pdf

Data as of 30-DEC-11 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.77 3.77 Aa 3.91 3.90 3.91 A 4.24 4.34 4.29 Baa 4.99 5.33 5.16 Avg 4.38 4.34 4.36 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.60 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.39 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.49 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, corresponding Bond Yield Averages for December 28 were (about) 2 basis points higher than 12/30/11. Corresponding rates for 12/23/11 were (about) 18-20 basis points higher than 12/30/11. Some users/reviewers of these items have questioned whether these rates are appropriate for FAS87 purposes. I agree that Moody's rate may not be the best choice. However, I continue to post them as a reference, and not as a recommended discount rate. If you desire to discuss what is an appropriate rate, you may contact me directly.

The "genius" is probably someone who works in real estate, and never heard of RMD.

There was a plan at that date. The form of the plan changed, but the accrued benefit still existed.

No cite, but common sense (OK, that rarely applies to regulatory agencies or Congress) indicates that the EE had an accrued benefit, so RMD should apply.

Some chronology might help: 417(e) was subtantially amended by TRA86.

(a)(26)?

Rule No. 1. Insurance is not an investment. Rule No. 2. See Rule No. 1. Decide what you want to do: the purpose of life insurance is to provide protection (for spouse, children, estate, etc). Keep investment decisions separate.