david rigby

Soemthing else going on? The reference to disability gives rise to the thought he's trying to hide some assets (not that the plan, or ER, cares why).

Other thoughts: - did you receive an individual statement showing your account balance, ever? - as implied above, a safe harbor plan is not required to be safe harbor every year, so there should be some other documentation (SPD or otherwise).

Maybe, but that's not common. If the freeze amendment is a (relatively) simple statement such as, "... no further accruals after xx/yy/zz", and there is no corresponding exception for 415, then the most common interpretation is that you canmust not interpret it with any exceptions. If you want the 415 exception, another amendment will be needed. [Edit: Yikes, my original typing was pretty bad. Added "must not".]

I hope the EE gets legal advice also!

Maybe, but that's not common. If the freeze amendment is a (relatively) simple statement such as, "... no further accruals after xx/yy/zz", and there is no corresponding exception for 415, then the most common interpretation is that you can interpret it with any exceptions. If you want the 415 exception, another amendment will be needed.

Another thought: I suggest caution in how you use the word "terminated". - In original post, you say "terminated further accruals". A more useful word for this is "freeze". - Then you say "supposedly will be terminated". This implies a (future) plan termination, which is significantly different than a freeze. As long as the plan continues to exist, even if frozen, its ongoing administration continues, including putting people into retirement status as they reach that eligibilty. This may be important to the EE in question because it illustrates why "aging into" early retirement eligibility is just part of the day-to-day plan administration. In your #3, whatever is "in writing" should be considered in context of the actual plan document provisions. If the document is silent, there may be outside administrative practice (preferably as written procedures) or precedent to act as guidance. Just my opinion, while there may be a legitimate complaint about incorrect comments from HR, this does not necessarily alter what the plan provides. (Recent case from the Supremes.)

Bummer. I'll try. 1. "Age into early retirement eligibilty" is included in ERISA, so that's no problem. However, the ERF provided to VTs need not be as generous as provided to active EEs. IMHO, it's inconceivable that the sponsor wanted to give the Rule of 85 subsidy to a VT. Why give a reward to those who left? 2. The poor documentation might be a problem, but that's why the sponsor will hire an experienced ERISA attorney. 3. If the question was, "can I age into ER?", then the Yes response was correct. If the question was, "can I age into the Rule of 85 subsidy?", then the Yes response is probably incorrect. But, very important to know the exact question, and exact response. See (2). 4. That might work as a method to capture an ER subsidy. Plan freeze is not likely to alter the ER subsidy, but a plan termination might be another matter. See (2). Very possible that this will never have a clear resolution, and the parties may need to search for compromise. See (2). Just some thoughts.

Not fully current, but ... On this EBSA page: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/main.html#section7 scroll down to Funded Research Papers, Private Pension Plan Bulletins, 2008 http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/PDF/2008pensionplanbulletin.PDF Does that help?

1099-R for 2009?

Based on the assumption that the estate does not have the right to elect a rollover, the 20% withholding rate is not relevant. So, the default withholding rate becomes 10%, but (I think) the estate has the right to elect zero withholding, using a W-4P, just like any other recipient of a QP benefit. The estate probably will use the W-4P to communicate to the PA the correct TIN for the estate. Just my limited understanding of the process. Perhaps others have more relevant experience.

As said on another board recently, "it's writing like this that gets us in trouble". "On a national level"? Are you asking what "national" agency has any "oversight" to define the PA? Or perhaps you are asking whether most state and/or local govt plans specify a particular internal department (or person) to be the PA?

Good, ... and change the QDRO procedures to reflect it.

A logical approach, but be careful to read the QDRO since it might require something different.

Andy is correct: most application of "grandfathering" (at least what is contemplated under 411d6 protection) is based on a wearaway of the dollar amount determined at the amendment date. Most, but not all, so a careful review of the actual amendment is needed. However, you may have indentified a different problem: failure to follow the plan document as amended. This may create other issues to address: - exactly what was the actual application? - was it consistent (wrong, but consistent)? - how many EEs affected? - to what $ extent? - if application was wrong, who has to 'fess up? - who has to pay up (if anyone)? Based on your comments, it may be that no participant suffered any harm, but the plan may have paid more than required by the amendment. The PA should probably engage an experienced ERISA attorney, especially w/r/t the last two bullets.

Data as of 31-MAY-11 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.94 4.94 Aa 5.00 5.01 5.01 A 5.23 5.21 5.22 Baa 5.64 5.75 5.70 Avg 5.29 5.23 5.26 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.18 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.21 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.35

Sharon, you've received a fine gift from vebaguru. With respect to: be very careful how "profit" is determined.

Ditto. Why make it more complex than necessary? Special class of NHCEs that get an extra PS contribution?

This is the correct solution. Without reviewing the report, no one can answer this question, but the actuary you hire will review and provide an answer.

As far as I know, there is no statemetn in IRC or in IRS reg that contemplates any discounting for accrued interest, anywhere. IMHO, it would be a gigantic leap to assume anyone in DC understands time value of money (or money value of time, for that matter). I'm just sayin'.

Govt. owned hospital buys the practice of a doc. Doc sponsors his/her own plan (401a plan, not 403b plan). Doc is now an employee of the hospital. What can/must happen to the plan? Is the plan frozen? Terminated? Can the hospital continue to operate the plan?

I have the following originals: 1988 5500 form and instructions; 1989 5500 form and instructions; 1990 5500 form and instructions; 1991 5500 form and instructions; 1992 5500 form and instructions; 1993 5500 form and instructions; 1994 5500 instructions; If you want any/all, please e-mail me.

Are ya sure?

As Andy says (and assuming the plan is subject to ERISA), the plan cannot pay a lump sum based on UP84/7.5% unless that amount is greater than the LS based on the 417 interest and mortality. Thus, what you assume in the valuation should reflect the actual plan provisions.

QDROphile is correct. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43688

My guess is that he means "medical benefits" rather than "medical insurance". To my limited understanding, this is similar to the difference between "self-insured" vs. "insured". In the latter case, state insurance laws are relevant. A few other non-attorney thoughts: - You state "bargained to impasse". Is this the same as saying "no CBA exists"? If so, did the ER have any valid position to continue paying to the llocal health plan? If not, is there a solution by going back to that point in time? - If no CBA exists, and the ER wants to make sure its EEs have some coverage, is there anything prohibiting the ER from unilaterally purchasing insurance or otherwise contracting with a PPO? (Even if the answer is yes, this will likely leave some recent terminations out of COBRA coverage.)