david rigby

Might be hasty to assume this is "IRS v. DOL". It might be "001 vs. 002" (that is, a simple mistake).

GMK is suggesting that the plan can be amended to modify the definition of leave in the special case of death. Assuming the plan sponsor wants to make that modification.

Don't know about Code/regs, but your provision is very common in my experience.

What is your relationship to the plan/termination process? The actuary will know how to do this, and will know how to read this reg: http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/law-regu.../page14765.html

There are a few prior discussion threads related to this topic. You can use the Search feature, possibly with a search word such as "illegal". But read Post #10 in this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40702

Any comments, Peter?

Not such a great guarantee, huh? BTW, read the contract carefully, rather than take at face value anyone's statement that such adjustment must apply.

Think outside the box: perhaps a relative loaned the money to the EE? That just takes care of the immediate need to pay the invoice, but does it eliminate the hardship?

Could someone else have paid the bill, as a loan?

Logan, Allocations that are based on flat dollar, in whole or in part, will provide a very favorable basis for non-discrimination testing (ie, the pct is higher as the comp gets lower).

The Enrolled Actuaries Report (published quarterly) includes a 2-page chart of the primary limits, some with unrounded amounts. http://www.actuary.org/ear/index.asp Each year, look in the Winter edition.

My 2 Cents is stating facts. Andy is ranting, and justifiably so. Yes, the funding rates and LS rates will move toward each other, but never meet. The larger problem is implied by Andy's example: use of the stability period can/will distort payments away from "true" market value at the date of payment. The answer to the question: is that Congress has created another bureacracy/set of rules, rather than fixing the problems with the prior ones.Here is my preferred PPA rules: 1. Use pre-PPA section 412, gradually raising the 90% test under 412(l)(9) to 100%. 2. Change LS interest rates to equal the current liability rates 3. Require all Americans to hire an actuary. (Instead of 900 pages, PPA would have been 3 pages. Just think of all the trees that could have been saved.) End of rant.

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=117588,00.html

Dr. Seuss

... and the filing of the 1040 as a "first offer".

Usually true, and certainly what is contemplated in the ERISA-defined J&S benefit. However, the plan can define additional optional forms of payment that might offer other flexibility (think, "pop-up"), subject to spousal signoff as appropriate. Thus, as AndyH says above, check the plan document.

Hey Tom, how do you mean "useless"? This is important information.

If you are going to use a facts and circumstances test, be sure to use all the facts, not just some of them. Note the discussion in 1.401(a)(4)-5(a)(2) uses the phrase "...has the effect of discriminating significantly..." IMHO, it is relevant to consider whether the proposed plan design/timing is both discriminatory and significant. For example, if the benefit formula uses all service, then the eventual benefit received by the NHCEs (assuming they reach a non-zero vesting at some later date) is exactly the same as if the plan had existed prior to their hire date, with a possible conclusion that there is no discrimination.

Is that a different result under a facts and circumstances test?

Change of terminology, not substance. See IRC 4971(a)(1).

Or maybe it needs new spark plug cables.

35 years later, The Big Red Machine is still the most impressive team in my memory. Sparky should get most of the credit.

Effen, which part of the prior post are you confirming?

Elevating this. Any additional thoughts? Mask the EA signature and phone number? Alternative: include "signed" instead of the actual signature. Did anyone get any comments at the EA (or other) meeting?

1. No, unless the value is less than $5000 (and permitted by the Plan). 2. No. A few prior discussion threads on this topic. Perhaps the PA can advise the EE: (a) a distribution will be made due to the plan termination, (b) if you don't return this form within 30(?) days, the plan will purchase an annuity contract for your benefit. No other choices.