david rigby

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.)

Physical location of the assets is not the controlling factor, but which plan has legal ownership of those assets. If the merger document(s) are clear on that point at 12/31/10, then 2010 is the final plan year for that plan, and the Schedule H/I should show zero assets at EOY. Don't forget lines 2L and 5b on the H/I.

Oops. Of course you're right. My mistake for reading too fast.

Maybe. No information in above posts about NHCEs.

One-time amendment to use a more generous definition of eligibilty?

Note that neither 410(a)(5) nor its cross-reference 411(a)(6) say anything about termination of employment.

I can think of a few crazier ideas, but not many!

No, but the employer's involvement (expense) in administering the plan gives it some leverage in how future administration should be conducted.

Is the employer obligated to continue providing the plan?

Data as of 31-JAN-11 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.12 5.12 Aa 5.34 5.28 5.31 A 5.61 5.52 5.57 Baa 6.05 6.15 6.10 Avg 5.67 5.52 5.60 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.27 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.56 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.75

411(d)(6) protection is focused on the "accrued benefit of a participant". A non-participant has no accrued benefit.

Yes, I think so. However, notice the "and" in clause (b)(3). A strict reading is that a church plan can elect ERISA coverage, but not elect PBGC coverage. You might search PBGC regs to see if they have any more on that point.

ERISA section 4021(b):

Normal prep and filing expenses for the 5500 are probably plan expenses, rather than settlor expenses. But, extra fees to fix an error (ie, a settlor error) might not be plan expenses. After you review the advice on the DOL website, we would be interested in learning of your conclusion.

I've done this before (although not in the last 10 years). Since we were changing from "excess reverts to ER" to "excess is allocated to EES", we didn't bother asking anyone's "permission", just amended the plan to change the existing plan language on what to do with any excess assets. Just remember that 411(d)(6) protection applies to the amendment.