david rigby

First: significant difference between a "partial plan termination" and a "plan termination". To which do you refer? Second: depends who is "we". It's not up to the TPA to make the decision.

Agree, but here is a previous horror story: - plan amended to freeze accruals, but - the amendment is poorly drafted and does not freeze participation; - new employees enter the plan but do not accrue anything, except..................... - the plan defines a minimum benefit at NRD. Thus, the new employees/participants have a non-zero benefit at NRD if they remain employed until that time. Oops.

This may be a symptom of a larger problem: the participant cannot distinguish between plan assets and any other assets. Consider whether further controls are needed to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Seems like the best response to me.Another view is that any solution is so open to problems, the sponsor should probably precede any action with advice from its ERISA counsel.

While the imagery is not attractive, it may be worthwhile to note that consistency is important also.

Notice 2011-67 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-11-67.pdf

It depends. IRC 4971(e) defines the liability for the tax. Probably the employer will answer your question after consultation with tax and/or ERISA counsel.

The rest of the world needs/wants you to fight this, but your ERISA attorney will advise on what you need to do.

Yes, ususally by defining groups (division A but not divison B; those with green hair but not those with orange hair).

Tom's advice is correct. This situation should be the same as an NHCE who becomes HCE during the year due to change in ownership percentage.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=49406

1. If there is a pattern of rehires, don't do it early. 2. The ERISA requirement is that the VT be put on the Schedule SSA for the plan year following the plan year in which DOT occurred, and that your notification to the VT occur on or before this date.

From June 2011: http://www.ifrs.org/News/Press+Releases/IAS+19+June+2011.htm Unfortunately, to read the entire revised Statement 19, you must be a subscriber, but here is a summary: http://www.ifrs.org/NR/rdonlyres/D06B86E4-...FSIAS190611.pdf Not much detail available, but it appears that sponsors of multi-employer plans must include some information about withdrawal liability (page 19).

Data as of 29-JUL-11 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.67 4.67 Aa 4.90 4.81 4.86 A 5.09 5.08 5.09 Baa 5.54 5.64 5.59 Avg 5.18 5.05 5.12 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.21 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.11 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.28

Above advice is desirable. While the original post defined an unusual benefit, it is not impossible. It is probably not permitted by plan design. It is also not likely any well-designed plan would include this form of payment. However, don't jump to the conclusion that no portion of the AP benefit stream can be paid to an estate after death of the AP. Example: if AP elects a life annuity with 10-yr guarantee, fails to name a beneficiary, and dies before 10 years, then the default beneficiary may be the AP's estate.

While this might be OK, prudence indicates a very close inspection of the document first to ensure no conflicting terms.

Pretty good summary. Check the plan document for any definitions that help define distributable event (although that phrase may not be used). Severance from employment will be one of those events, but there might be other relevant definitions.

Just for clarity, please add some more flesh to this skeleton.

March 14

Yes, else the plan administration will not follow the plan document.

This PRD sounds like an installment refund annuity, or maybe a cash refund annuity. For an unmarried participant, the plan (probably) does not care who the beneficiary is, so it should not object to the participant changing the beneficiary designation. Although you may have to read between the lines a bit, I'll guess the plan already specifies the answer to this question. If there is nothing in the Plan, does the plan sponsor want to amend the plan to clarify that the unmarried participant has this right? If so, amend away.

Similar discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=49196

Check to see if IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A27 applies to your situation.

So, the "bonus" is contingent on future service? Wow, is that a bad idea!

An email? You're kidding, right? IMHO, go directly to the president. If the VP screws up and gets fired, your company and/or innocent other employees may also suffer. Better to let the Pres know that there might be a compliance problem (it's also possible that you don't have all the facts). It's always best to take the high road.