david rigby

Lots of choices. Get another custodian?

"overfunding" may be a mistake of fact, but don't expect the IRS to ever define it. Facts and circumstances rule, but be very cautious.

I've never heard anyone state or opine that the issuance of the SB is a certification (but we should not be surprised if the IRS eventually goes there). Closest Q&A from the Gray BooK:

If the Braves aren't playing, the baseball season is over.

Don't forget the "good faith" clause found in §1.410(b)-6(d)(2) and IRC 410(b)(3).

Any contribution after 09/15/2011 cannot be considered a 2010 PY contribution. Only possible exception is IRS-granted disaster relief.

Data as of 30-SEP-11 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.96 3.96 Aa 4.13 4.01 4.07 A 4.38 4.47 4.43 Baa 5.07 5.36 5.22 Avg 4.53 4.45 4.49 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.58 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.36 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.55

Likely, the plan has more to say than that. 1. check to see if the plan's termination provisions already permit a lump sum distribution. If not, YES it can be amended to add it. Don't use the term "window". 2. any participant offered a LS over $5000 must also recieve an option to recieve the benefit as an annuity, with the usual J&S requirements for married particiaptns. (It's possible that the plan imposes such restrictions on benefits less than $5000, but not very common, so read carefully.)

I'm not familiar with "expired". Can you provide some more information?

Is the TH benefit cumulative? Is the EE's accrued benefit (expressed as a LA) already over 20%? (HCE not relevant to TH question. Check for Key employee status.)

Do your facts (lack of funds for attorney) alter your classification as a "good claim"? (Hey, just asking, not expressing an opinion.)

... and check to see what the plan says. It may be reasonable, especially considering Effen's warnings about the cost of a commercial annuity, to have the trust pay a monthly benefit to the retiree. Edit: I may have misinterpreted your original post. Are you saying the plan IS terminating? or is this a "what-if"?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=48853 I offered mine, but they have now been tossed.

This is a design decision (as summarized in the orginal post), but it is not required.Follow SoCal's advice. If you need it, don't hesitate to engage another actuary for a second opinion.

Yes, the plan can be amended to provide vesting more generous than the minimum required. Cautions: 1. make sure your amendment does not discriminate in favor of HCEs 2. step back and think about whether such amendment creates a precedent you might not want.

Might be THE issue.Another thought, actuarially, is what early retirement subsidy, if any, is included in the plan.

Notice 2011-87: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=....html?portlet=7

... 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