david rigby

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

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