david rigby

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?

Multiple-employer plan?

Difficult to know, but my guess is that the $325 benefit due to you is based on the presumption that he actually survived to retirement age. Since he did not, that means the plan's death benefit provisions apply, and the $325 is no longer relevant. The QDRO statement that you are to be treated as the "surviving spouse" means the plan's default death benefit will treat you as if you had not been divorced. Why is this important? Some plans (don't know about your husband's plan) define a pre-retirement default death benefit as payable only to a surviving spouse; if there is no spouse, there is no death benefit. Per your own phrasing, this QDRO statement is relevant "in regards to the pre-retirement benefit"; thus, it identifies you a surviving spouse and does not create any other rights for you. You might get a different benefit if you provide a copy of the divorce decree, but be warned that many plan administrators will only act on a QDRO. If there is any reason to believe they do not yet have that, send a copy; if they already have it, no need for a second copy. Based on your earlier comments, it appears the plan's pre-retirement death benefit definitions are the only relevant portion of the plan to define your benefit. By all means, be sure your attorney reviews your QDRO and all correspondence from the plan. I'm not qualified to give legal advice.

Depends on the actual definition. Many documents include all deferrals in the definition of comp, whether from 401k, 403b, 125, 132, etc.

Data as of 30-NOV-10 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.79 4.79 Aa 5.03 4.93 4.98 A 5.28 5.21 5.25 Baa 5.75 5.93 5.84 Avg 5.35 5.21 5.29 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.23 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.24 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.22

Sounds like that merger has given you a gift: an excellent opportunity to stop filing as well as a great way to explain it to the EBSA. Just to be sure, you may want to search the 5500 instructions and/or the EBSA and IRS websites for any guidance (likely, you are not the first to have this problem).

The 402(g) limit is an individual limit, not plan limit. Don't forget about catch-up contributions, if eligible.

IMHO, WestCoast is correct, with a strict reading of IRC 417(a)(5), which appears to exempt a plan from all of 417(a) under certain conditions. Similar in ERISA section 205. However, read both Notice 2008-30 and the "Technical Explanation of H.R. 4 prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation" (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pensionreform.html, page 258 of PDF document). It appears the "flavor" of both interprets the intent of PPA section 1004 to require all DB plans to offer at least 2 J&S forms of payment. I see nothing in either that addresses the situation raised by WestCoast. My guess is a zero chance that the average IRS agent would understand this subtle distinction, even though you can always hang onto a strict reading of the IRC if you believe the regulatory guidance is incorrect or inconsistent. BTW, since an IRS Notice is not a regulation, it's binding on the IRS but not on the plan. (Is that an accurate synopsis?) Next is the legal counsel's function of advising the plan sponsor whether it's worth the bother of fighting the IRS. I look forward to reading the result.

Here is some other DOL guidance. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/AOs/settlor_guidance.html