david rigby

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?

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.