david rigby

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.

If you have specific questions, this might be helpful: http://www.labor.ny.gov/home

Maybe Tonto should have spent some time learnin' TLR to speak Tonto's native language.

No disrespect intended, Tom. For me, the advice, "hire an actuary", just makes sense.

I agree with SoCal. No need to make it difficult. BTW, the 2009 5500EZ was posted on the IRS website in May 2010, so you'll probably have to wait another 4 months.

IMHO, you need approval. The logic works like this: 1. If you read reg. 1.430(g)-1©(i), approval needed. 2. If you read Rev. Proc. 2000-40, sec. 3.10, approval not needed. 3. But the IRS has stated this about RP 2000-40:

See definition of "standard mortality table" in reg. 1.401(a)(4)-12. Sorry, I don't have a list of any possible updates since the reg was issued. Note the phrase at the end of the paragraph, referring to the 417(e)(3) table. You may need to refer to IRS Notice 2008-85 for the current table. A more generic answer to the question is, "hire an actuary with experience in cross-testing."

I believe that restrictions are removed only when a new AFTAP certification is issued. You might want to review the reg. to check my memory.

Society of Actuaries Table Manager might help: http://xtbml.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp

A few similar discussion threads. Here is one of them: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47508 The Search feature may help you find others. Bottom line: what the recipient does with the money after receipt is of no consequence to the plan, but most plans will not contain any provision that permits the participant to "waive" or "suspend" the monthly payment.

IRC 414(p) does not contain "divorce" or "separated". As such, neither is required for a DRO to be considered as a QDRO. QDROphile's advice is on target: look to the plan's provisions and QDRO procedures.

Just my opinion: no, it sounds more like an expense of the company rather than the plan.