david rigby

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.

See IRS Reg. 1.430(f)-1(d)(3)(ii). Read carefully.

http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

Data as of 31-AUG-10 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.26 4.26 Aa 4.53 4.48 4.51 A 4.78 4.78 4.78 Baa 5.36 5.60 5.48 Avg 4.89 4.78 4.84 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.28 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.23 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.83

Agree. Treat this as a data correction.

See IRC 411(a)(13) for the PPA-added vesting requirement for "hypothetical account balance plans".

Almost always this question is answered by the plan's definition of compensation.

Except for cash balance/hybrid plans.

Don't know if your inquiry is addressed, but Carol Calhoun includes a variety of information on her website: http://benefitsattorney.com/index.php

Normally, the plan document should identify who has the power to amend, and the trust document would not have power to override the plan document.

Per IRC sec. 71(b), alimony is taxable to the recipient (and hence deductible by the payor), if Since your payments to your ex are clearly not part of the QDRO, check with your attorney to see if those payments can be considered alimony under your divorce/separation agreement. You know what happens when we assume.

Prior discussions might help you: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=34236 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32892