david rigby

IMHO, a 5500 is not a tax return. However, that appears to be shorthand to the IRS, since the entire process focuses on Subtitle A of the IRC. Sections 401, 412, 430, etc are all in Subtitle A.

Very unlikely that the plan permits "halt" or "suspension". I've seen similar examples where the sponsor amended the plan to permit the participant a one-time lump sum option, thus removing the monthly amount from her financial statement, but this might not accomplish the goal. (The plan is not required to do anything, except making the monthly payment as previously provided.)

Most likely, since the form says "...MUST be received by the Internal Revenue Service by March 1, 2008".

You can risk your letters, but not me.

Has anyone in DC taken (and passed) Econ 101?

Make sure it does not exceed the value of the benefit? Absolutely. Make sure it complies with the rest of the document? Of course. For example, does the plan permit a LS distribution? Does the QDRO provide enough information for you to identify the participant's remaining benefit? (Just a hunch: no.) Was the QDRO drafted by someone who thinks of all plans in a DC world? (Another hunch: yes.) Has anyone already reviewed the DRO to make sure it is a QDRO?

Maybe not. Might be able to "fix" the merger amendment. Legal counsel.

Just an opinion (and how I've done this before): merge on 12/31 and show asset transfers on Schedule H/I. The surviving plan assets at EOY will be the total, while the EOY assets for the disappearing plan will be zero. The auditor loved this solution.

Search www.PBGC.gov for "opinion letter"? Op ltrs are issued by the Office of General Counsel. You can find a description of the Office of the General Counsel near the bottom of this page: http://www.pbgc.gov/about/departments.html

No need to split milliseconds. Perhaps the Gray Book will provide a reasonable response? Q&A 1997-38 Other DB Issues: Mergers and Short Plan Years A plan sponsor intends to merge two calendar year plans. To avoid filing a short plan year Form 5500 for either plan, should the merger date be December 31 or January 1? RESPONSE The merger documents should include language describing the transaction as taking effect at a time such as "as of the beginning of the plan year" or "as of the end of the plan year." As long as the intention is clear, the IRS should not question a date of either December 31 or January 1 on Form 5500 or on Form 5310-A. Copyright © 1997, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

Duplicate post. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47452

Depends on the precise wording in the plan document? Implicit in your Q appears to be using "retirement" and "benefit commencement" as equivalent. Maybe yes, maybe no. Another point to remember: the document may be ambiguous, but it may be possible to amend out that ambiguity.

Hmmm. Perhaps the irony is unrelated to the name, but is related (apparently) to a Ms. listening to a Mr.

You will probably have to do your own research on this, especially on the websites of the big consulting firms. However, don't expect to find much, since the data needed is not as readily available as comparison for FAS87. Just posted a few days ago was a link to this brief commentary: http://www.aon.com/attachments/pension_finance_dec2010.pdf

Don't forget the SSA letter forwarding program: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/foia/html/ltrfwding.htm

Agree with QDROphile. Why not have the participant pay alimony of whatever portion is desired, for participant's lifetime. Or if there is alimony going the other way, just offset.

Theoretically, yes. You could use the analogy that each future payment is made by the maturity value of a zero-coupon bond, and all such bonds are purchased on the valuation date. Since each bond has a different maturity date, it can have a different discount rate. (A certain degree of simplicity is applied, since separate rates for each future monthly maturity date would be impractical, and probably provide no useful improvement in accuracy.)

See IRS Reg. 1.430(h)(2)-1, especially subsection (b)(5). From reg published in federal register 10/15/2009 .

Have you considered death, and checked the SSA online list of death records?Have you considered that the EE may have left the country?

Duplicate post: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47391

A matching formula can be more than 100%. (Not very common, but it's possible.) As correctly stated, 415 and ACP limits apply.

All nonsense. A 5500 is not a "tax return". The IRS should use some common sense.

What kind of plan is this? Is it possible that the missing asset caused an incorrect distribution? If the answer to that question is NO, is it necessary to amend anything? (Just asking; materiality might be relevant.) At any rate, this Q may be either very simple or very complex. Get thee to an experienced ERISA attorney.

Ask him.

The right to receive a lump sum is protected. The lump sum amount is not. Anti-cutback protection applies to the accrued benefit, defined in ERISA (and the plan) as an annuity commencing at normal retirement age. Effen's comment about 415 is spot-on: for a one-participant plan, assuming 415 is not a factor, is there reason to believe that the actual lump sum will be something other than the actual value of the assets?