david rigby

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?

Perhaps show the agent a 2008 asset statement, presumably with more detail than the 5500, showing investment losses. This might headoff a larger investigation.

Whose error? sponsor or TPA?

Your tax dollars at work.

Try online search for an obituary. That might turn up a sibling or other relative. BTW, if no beneficiary designation, check the plan for a default definition.

IMHO, there is nothing wrong with this.BTW, if the plan is DB and the previously reported A has begun receiving monthly payments, that person should also be reported as D.

Likely, it depends on administrative practice. I've seen anywhere from 0% to 8% (with appropriate compounding and fractional adjustments).

Maybe. The end of an employment relationship is in the hands of the ER and/or the EE. The ER could label this person as terminated, but also permit him/her to be "on-call" or a contract employee. Do it affirmatively, and consistent with other similar situations. (For example, if the on-call work is steady, the ER might choose to forego any formal declaration of severance of employment.)

Since you now have more information, it does not seem appropriate to ignore it.

Agree, mostly. 1. No. 2. It depends. When you say "zero% of Average Annual Comp", are you referring to the accrual rate for future years, or to the entire accrued benefit? 3. Agree. Note that the possbility that the SPD might be deemed 204(h) adequate, but not retroactive, thus effective at 07/01/2003. This might change the accrued benefit. 4. Does the plan have any kind of minimum ($25, for example)? If not frozen, then new EEs may have entered the plan and receive the min.

1) the plan doesn't allow lump sums if the pvab was ever over 5k. OK, but this issue has nothing to do with distributions upon termination of employment. Rather check plan language to see what it says happens upon termination of the plan. Take special note of any use of "shall" or "must" or "may".

Caution 1. What does the plan say? Does the plan already contain language that requires lump sum distributions? If so, amending to include PA ability to make distribution via annuity contract may violate 411(d)(6). Caution 2. You might not be able to purchase individual annuity contracts for deferred payment dates. Insurance companies like to sell immediate annuities, but are less enthusiastic about selling deferred annuities. (If it's a group annuity, this issue might evaporate.)

The TPA might be more comfortable getting legal advice from its own ERISA counsel, rather than getting it here.

Well....., that's almost what the reg states. See 1.401(a)(26)-1(b). There are two conditions that must be met: - plan does not benefit any HCE, and - plan not aggregated with any other plan in order to satisfy 401(a)(4) or 410(b).

Q1. What response does the recordkeeper give when presented with the question, "Why are you doing this?" Q2. What does the plan say? (OK, maybe you should reverse the order of those questions.)