david rigby

This word might cause one to question the exact nature of the transaction. Perhaps a close inspection of the board resolution or other document(s) that caused this transaction?

Can't be both a merger and a termination. Your ERISA attorney will help determine which is correct.

Just an opinion, but it seems that a back-up would be important.

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/ Not perfect; may not be updated quickly, but it might help, especially if you click "Advanced".

In your experience, has this been successful?

Scanned? If that is the reasoning, then why not submit a PDF?

Andy is correct. This is a good question, with no help from the instructions. If you get an answer from the EFAST2 Help Line 1.866.GO-EFAST (1.866.463.3278), please tell us.

Does it matter?

I read the original Q a bit differently. If you want to change the deduction for 2009, that sounds like amending the tax filing. If permitted (see tax advisor), then the 300K can be divided as desired: 250K deducted on the amended tax filing and 50K as part of the 2010 plan year contribution. The SB and Schedule H/I would show 250K as the 2009 contribution. I think you have to do all these steps, or none.

BTW, it is the plan administrator's review to determine if a DRO meets the requirements to become "qualified". To this end, it may be advisable to submit a draft to the plan administrator, before presentation to the court.

First problem?

Other information you need: - technically, you are submitting a DRO (or perhaps a draft DRO). It is the plan administrator's review that determines if it meets the requirements to become "qualified". - what kind of plan is this? If a DB plan, the DRO might need additional information for the plan administrator to review. For example, a DRO cannot require a plan to pay a form of payment not already permissible under the plan, nor can it require the plan to pay more (measured by standard actuarial techniques) to you and your ex (in total) than would otherwise be payable. - not necessarily complete information, you may wish to review DOL comments about QDRO's: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_qdro.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html

IMHO, judgment call. Remember that the Citigroup curve differs from the IRS curve in two primary respects: - the IRS curve goes to 100 years, while the Citi curve goes to 30 years, - the IRS curve is based on bond rates in the top 3 categories, while the Citi curve is based on bond rates in the top 2 categories (corrections welcome if my summary is not valid.)

That is a decision for the plan sponsor.

Rethink whether the calculation of deductible limit is subject to modification?

The JBEA renewal page has been updated for the current renewal cycle.

I'm not aware of any statutory change in sec. 209 or IRC 6057. If you are aware of a change, please post.

Any help here? http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

It's does not appear to meet the definition of QJSA in 1.401(a)-11(b)(2). Could the described form be an option, rather than a default definition of QJSA?

Could B purchase Dad's business? If so, that (probably) makes B the new sponsor. Get legal advice of attorney with ERISA experience.

Is this a prohibited transaction? ERISA sec. 406(a)

Winter 2010 edition of the Enrolled Actuaries Report. http://www.actuary.org/ear/

See SFAS No. 87. Also relevant may be Nos. 88, 106, 132, 158. Most importantly, generally accepted accounting principles reflect that a financial statement is meaningful only at the end of an accounting period (quarter, year, etc.)

This seems suspiciously like the logic used by the average bureaucrat.

Just a hunch: the $100 "quote" was the attorney's wish, not a real experience. While it's not appropriate to discuss fees here, the $100 value seems too low, by a lot. That would not cover the actuary's time/effort/due diligence before providing a PV calc.