david rigby

SoCal, I've had confusion on the reg cite that Andy quoted. I focused on the word "either", and interpret it to mean that you can use this permission to change only once for 2008, 2009, or 2010. Am I parsing too much? Any comments?

Agreed. The only issue might be consistency with any other filings/yield rates calculations.

I've seen several documents that define a LS death benefit when there is no spouse, and simultaneously define the beneficiary as the estate.

Did your mother ever tell you to "play nice"? If not, consider it said, please.

Don't overlook the possibility of, thru close inspection, a new name but not necessarily a new entity.

This is great! It also points out the "L" part of Benefitslink. Short comments that list the highlights of other articles or references are often more useful than a lengthy posting.

Data as of 28-FEB-11 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.09 5.09 Aa 5.27 5.17 5.22 A 5.51 5.45 5.48 Baa 5.92 6.06 5.99 Avg 5.57 5.44 5.51 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.25 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.68 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.73

Have entire proposal reviewed by ERISA counsel first. If anything "taints" the XYZ plan, then XY may not want to become an adopting employer.

The original Q may make this clarification immaterial. When answering the generic Q about union EEs, don't forget this portion of 410(a)(3)(A):

Yes, per ERISA. IRC 401(a)(14).

Other discussions can be found using the Search feature, with a keyword of "collectible".

... and don't overlook plan provisions on "small" lump sum payments. For example, even if the plan has no LS option for the spouse, it might require a LS to spouse (now) if the LS < $5000.

What do you want the answer to be?

Further clarification: "roll" means each individual participant gets the option to do a rollover, which can be to an IRA or to another qualified employer plan (assuming that plan accepts rollovers). No "plan-wide" rollover.

Write an amendment providing 100% vesting for all participants leaving between date X and date Y? If you have any concern for (a(4), include that in your review/analysis.

Yes. See other discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47764

I see a violation of the QDRO.

Yes, you follow the document. Doesn't the doc already include an offset for the AE of payments received? Might be some generic language in one of those sections you rarely read. Assuming there is an offset, don't forget that (in most cases) the extra year of accrual is less valuable than the 12 monthly benefits recieved, so the net benefit does not change.

Something about economists?

Sorry if this sounds snarky, but "read the plan?" Most plan docs define beneficiary and also what to do if there is no designated beneficiary. For example, if the conclusion is that no living person is properly designated, the doc might state the beneficiary is the estate (which is not to be confused with "executor of the estate").

Maybe. No matter what its good intentions, the "qdro website" (or any other administrative procedure) cannot change the ultimate disposition of the QDRO-approved amount. IOW, don't let any admin process change what is supposed to happen. Nevertheless, it's your responsibility to communicate exactly.

Many prior (similar) examples.

Maybe I don't understand your terminology. If the plan allows in-service withdrawals and the participant is making that election, what does the trustee have to do with it (other than completing the distribution according to terms of the plan)?

If he has the cash now, but wants to wait until next year for the deduction, he'll have to put the cash aside (ie, not in the plan's trust) and make the contribution in after December 31.

Did buy/sell agreement mention how the plans would (or would not) be included? Stock purchase or asset purchase? If stock purchase, then B has (probably) become the sponsor of Plan A. Depending on how many EEs terminated, then a partial termination may have occurred (100% vesting for those affected, w/o regard to whether they were rehired). If not a stock purchase, then does A still exist? If so, then it (probably) remains the sponsor of plan A. If A is bankrupt, then the plan might automatically be terminated (100% vesting for all participants). Why didn't A and/or B discuss this w/ legal counsel first? (Oh, don't bother with that Q.)