david rigby

... and nothing contributed after 9/15 can be put on last year's SB. Only possible exception is special relief related to natural disaster.

I think all freeERISA documents are based on scanning, so sometimes characters might not be correct.

Perhaps you've already checked? - Reivew plan definition of "beneficiary". - Check all possible files (yours, ER, prior TPA?) for possible QDRO (It's easy to forget as time passes.) It's also possible that an earlier QDRO paid something to first wife, and the net effect is to automatically negate the prior beneficiary form.

I did this once, with the following guidelines: - if original form of payment was LA, no spousal signoff required; - if original form of payment was 10CC, beneficiary signoff required, unless the CC period had expired; - if original form of payment was a J&S, we required spousal signoff for the LS option; - if J&S and the spouse was deceased (whether or not the retiree was remarried), no spousal signoff required; - the "missing scenario" (J&S benefit, but retiree divorced) did not apply but it should be treated like second bullet point. In all cases, a written explanation was used to make sure the retiree/spouse understood the options. In hindsight, this whole thing was a bad idea: - retirees don't like change, - acceptance rate is pretty low, thus minimizing the potential savings, - significant amount of time spent talking to individual retirees.

My understanding is as stated by Effen. However, I'm not sure the plan must make payment on that basis. Could include a provision that permits the EE to elect from all avialable options? It would not be surprising to learn that most administration has been done this way.

Obviously, the correct answer is "all of the above".

Vanilla DB plan, Vanilla LTD plan (but I don't have the detailed contract). The latter contains the common long-term disability provision that offsets for anything the EE receives from the DB plan. Suppose the disabled EE is age 60 and eligible for monthly early retirement benefit, and the DB plan pays a lump sum (rather than an immediate LA). What is the most common administrative practice in the LTD plan: offset the entire lump sum until "used up"? offset the monthly equivalent? other?

Might help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47064

Enrolled Actuary I might be biased.

Why? The plan administrator is required to provide a notice to VTs, no later than the 5500 filing of the plan year following the plan year of severance of employment. Doesn't that (effectively) put the VT on notice to request the benefit? IMHO, it's unreasonable to expect the ER to do the legwork of tracking down all VTs (assuming they have been properly notified).

I suggest you also consider the possibility of death, and search here: http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ If you get any deaths, then your job becomes more difficult because you have to search for a surviving spouse. The best starting source might be an online obituary.

As permitted by the plan? QDRO cannot create this mechanism of distribution.

Data as of 31-AUG-11 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.41 4.41 Aa 4.48 4.54 4.51 A 4.74 4.86 4.80 Baa 5.33 5.62 5.48 Avg 4.85 4.86 4.86 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.43 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.25 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.05

Is there a RMD problem to deal with?

EOY is almost always best. The IRS was asked the question about whether 12/31 is different than 1/1 as a merger date, at an Enrolled Actuaries meeting a few years ago. Response: as long as the intent is clear, they don't care whether the merger date is 12/31 or 1/1. Just make sure there are no side issues. This might mean different things to different people. Be careful.BTW, don't forget: - the requirement for an audit is based on participant count. If keeping them separate keeps both below the limit, it may be worthwhile to avoid the merger. - if one plan has "excess assets" (ha, ha), merging be a method to reduce PBGC premiums.

Annuity form = 100% J&S? Why terminate? Got COLA?

Start with PPA section 508, which amended ERISA section 105.

DL?

True. Often this is cheaper than anything else.

Maybe. It's (always) a facts and circumstances test. First, the IRS presumes all terminations during the appropriate time frame are subject to the deemed vesting. Second, the plan sponsor has the ability to document other facts that might exclude some of those terminations. For example, an employee who died.

Make sure you know what you want: in SoCal's link, there are tables known as UP-94, GAM-94, and GAR-94. There are also projection scales to forecast to future years.

Any help here? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=48156

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=123231,00.html

Amen. Another possible reason to avoid the EE deferrals is the increased employee expectation of directing the investments.

Hmmm. What if you recognize 1 year of past service? or 2? Does that produce an onerous result?