david rigby

Must? not likely. The termination process usually involves asking each participant about the distribution, "Do you want a cash payment or a direct rollover? We will make the distribution within 30 days after you respond." Thus, the late responders should not inhibit the early responders.

Almost. If it's a hard freeze, any 415-related increases will not affect any accrued benefit. The freeze amendment could have been structured to include 415 increases, but it appears too late for that.

RPN forever! I was told once that the 12C has at least one limitation that is not in the HP-17BII: the former cannot solve for non-integral "n", but the latter does just fine. Sorry, I've never confirmed whether it's true, but I think the 17BII is superior.

As best I recall (don't have the reg in front of me), the 415 reg (April 2007?) includes significant discussion about whether to include comp, but the focus is only on comp received after the DOT. If that is correct, then comp received before DOT is not severance comp. (But my recollection may be incomplete.) BTW, the reg states that DOT is an event, not gradual or phased in.

Data as of 29-APR-11 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.09 5.09 Aa 5.20 5.15 5.18 A 5.46 5.38 5.42 Baa 5.86 5.93 5.90 Avg 5.51 5.39 5.45 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.23 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.48 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.63

Agree. Very strongly.

McKay Hochman also has a DB prototype.

Indeed. Pay attention to SoCal's very important phrase, "properly drafted".

Actuarial Exam, Part 1: answer (e) = undefined

Probably so, assuming the plan is subject to ERISA. Is it possible the plan has offered the retiree an election to receive a lump sum?

There has been at least one prior discussion thread on this point. Try the Search feature.

Not sure if I understand the emphasis in your Q, but here goes: 1. Required? Do you mean for funding, or for LS? For funding, I think the answer is NO, but that is a function of a reasonable retirement decrement. For LS, it is/should be based on plan definition. 2. Yes, if you include the condition that, the PV of ER-reduced immediate annuity should not be less than the PV of unreduced NRD annuity. Is that the gist of your Q?

Pi

Depending on the meaning of "went of business" and the precise wording of the document, the plan may have automatically been terminated.

Sorry, I have no idea if this ER-provided requirement is valid. Sounds like a Q for a labor/employment attorney. IMHO, an EE should ask the ER about the tax withholding Q. A125, My response is several weeks after the original posting. Do you have any other perspectives on this topic that you are willing to share?

Is the plan terminated? Paying out benefits as they become due is not (as far as I know) a termination. For that matter, is the plan (still) covered by the PBGC?

Data as of 31-MAR-11 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.15 5.15 Aa 5.35 5.25 5.30 A 5.57 5.50 5.54 Baa 5.99 6.11 6.05 Avg 5.64 5.50 5.57 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.27 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.75 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.77

WRERA modified PPA to state that small lump sums (under 5K) can be paid without regard to the 80% or 60% restrictions. Verify what the plan document says.

Yes, "approval" refers to IRS when discussing actuarial assumptions. Approval of the plan sponsor has always been a requirement of changing the funding method (for example, an asset smoothing method)

This is my understanding as well.

Probably not. Think of it as a snapshot of assets and liabilities at 12/31. But......, sometimes such changes can be significant, and its the auditor's decision whether to include. Ask.

Maybe the IRS letter forwarding program http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=110139,00.html

Or... we could request a change to IRC 6057(a), removing the IRS from the loop entirely (ie, there is no reason to have 2 govt agencies involved). Is the common sense gene removed when you start working for the govt?

You could do that, but first it might be worthwhile to ask this question of an experienced ERISA attorney, who will probably present more than one possible response.

It's incumbent on the PA to administer the plan according to its terms. The asset holder has NO say in this matter. If the asset holder won't do certain things, then the PA must change something: either the asset holder or the plan provision(s). BTW, did the "asset holder" know about this plan provision prior to being engaged?