david rigby

The Renewal page on the JBEA website (as of today, still reflects discussion of the 2008 renewal) contains this generic statement: http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/actuaries/index.html

So far, 5.75% to 6.0%.

Yes it is a premium.

Line 8d reads "(including direct rollovers and insurance premiums to provide benefits)". Does this answer your question?

Look at the Form 10 instructions (page 12) or the Form 10-Advance instructions (page 8).

Since detailed legal advice from this website is worth just what you pay for it, you probably need advice from an attorney who is well-versed in QDRO's (if the attorney is not well-versed, keep looking). Be aware that a QDRO cannot require a plan to pay benefits in a form not already authorized by the plan. For example, if a plan only pays monthly benefits, a QDRO cannot require a plan to pay a lump sum.

Data as of 31-DEC-10 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.88 4.88 Aa 5.23 5.07 5.15 A 5.45 5.35 5.40 Baa 5.93 6.02 5.98 Avg 5.54 5.33 5.44 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.32 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.64 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.65

Isn't Mom in the DB plan anyway, by virtue of being an employee? Yes, she will have zero additional accrual, but she is a participant?

I saw no such Q&A in the 2010 Gray Book.

Your tax dollars at work.

Is this a personnel policy?

Kudos to Dave Baker for providing BenefitsLink, a great resource.

Remove for future accruals or future participants.

This actuary likes the above advice. One possible wrinkle: Could the plan be "at fault"; that is, did the plan put this EE in pay status, ignoring a known QDRO?

I wonder if anyone has an update from this 2006 chart Post No. 8.

Read the doc very carefully. The plans sponsor's bankruptcy might automatically trigger some action w/r/t the plan.

Is Alice also a participant in the same DC plan?

The CC tables are published by the IRS late each year. For example, Rev. Ruling 2009-40 contained the 2010 table and was published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin on 12/28/09. Stay tuned. In addition, the Enrolled Actuaries Report, published by the American Academy of Actuaries, will have the table in its Winter edition (not yet available) at this address: http://www.actuary.org/ear/index.asp

In case readers did not see the BenefitsLink Buzz posting from December 13 about Janell Grenier: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/oklahoman...p;pid=146247608 As of this writing, Janell’s excellent blog and website are still online: http://www.benefitscounsel.com/

Sure it might help, but it appears the facts don't fit the regulation: per your first post, all employees are not treated similarly, and there is discriminatory application. BTW, is the plan ever amended to document these grants of service? If not, there may be a violation of the terms of the plan itself.

Looks like "...significant discrimination in favor of HCEs..." If it's "hard to track" service w/ prior employer, how can the current ER know if the vesting service being granted is accurate? Possible compromise: don't grant anyone prior service for anything, but improve the vesting schedule?

Why terminate a plan just because it's fully funded?

One wonders about the due diligence done by ABC prior to the buy/sell.

Still within the 60 days?

Notice 2008-13: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-13.pdf