david rigby

IMHO, EFAST2 has nothing to do with the likely response to your question. You (the plan) face the same EBSA/IRS wrath now as you would in any prior year of filing without the B.

Nothing written in front of me, but I recall more than one statement at the 2010 EA meeting: round down. At least one of the speakers was from the IRS/Treasury.

I think this entire discussion is a bunch of bull.

We accept SSNs thru our secure website, and encourage clients/vendors to use it.

Your use of "remove" might be ambiguous. Perhaps a bit more context?

Tom has adequately summarized IRC 410©. Just in case, here is 410(d):

I agree with above comments. A ERW for one NHCE will not be discriminatory, assuming the AFTAP permits a plan amendment. There could be other (associated) PR / HR issues, but those are (probably) not ERISA issues. The Q about fiduciary duty is a good one, and the fiduciary should seek advice from an ERISA attorney.

Is that participant still a participant at EOY?

Steve McQueen would be proud.

414(h) pick-up contributions?

Using the word "source" may a bit fuzzy. Sometimes the Gray Book is really good, sometimes not.IMHO, there is zero chance that the IRS (and the DOL for that matter) will ever take a position different from the Q&A linked above. Simply put, you do not want to fight the IRS on this; you will lose, and the resulting publicity will not be pretty.

If she is a govt-employed teacher, how does she have a 401(k)? (Yes, I know there are a few such plans, but very few.)

1. No. 2. Maybe.

I think the answer to the original question is Yes, and Andy's comment is also correct. IRC 411(a)(9) provides that the NRB cannot be less than the ERB, without regard to the minutia (sp?) of how the benefit is calculated. You may also wish to note the IRS opinion conveyed in the 2008 Gray Book here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46419

Don't forget that many administrative decisions are (should be) made in conjunction with documented procedures and respect for precedent.

Not disagreeing with comments from My 2 cents, it may be useful to point out that his/her use of "should" is an opinion; no DOL or IRS reg prohibits a loan feature in a DB plan. Before any such feature is used, the sponsor should be aware of the pros and cons. - IRC 4875(d)(1) outlines the PT exemption. - See DOL reg 2550.408b-1 for the details regs. Note especially paragraph (f)(1). - See the preamble to the DOL reg, esp.

Perhaps I'm a cynic but it seems reasonble to say that nothing precludes the IRS from doing anything.

Borrowed from Jay Leno's "Headlines": Bird Watchers fail to spot extinct bird.

Nothing. It's just a play on the old saying, "Is the pope catholic?"

Maybe Lance knows the answer!

In my observation, it is very common. That is, many plans define service w/ 1000-hour rule. The plan may have separate definitions for vesting service and benefit service, but (practically) those definitions are identical. Upon reaching a plan entry date (very often defined with a one-year eligibility period and dual entry dates), the employee will always have earned a YOS and might be very close to earning a second YOS. Or perhaps I've misread the question.

What a great deal!

The original post implied, but did not state, that the participant is a VT. However, if the participant is actively employed, then the confusion over address may not be the fault of the participant.

The participant had to elect the form of distribution. Might the election form already serve this purpose? (OK, it may be wishful thinking, but it's worth a look.)

I agree with Andy. Both times.