david rigby

Let me guess: the insurance agent recommended this!

Implicit in the original post is that the 25-year-old son is not a dependent. Correct? If so, does anything else matter?

The comments above are (for the most part) correct. I don't want to excuse any of the IRS' mistakes, but this one belongs at the feet of the DOL.

Very likely this issue has arisen before. Have you checked with the DOL? Q&A here, esp. #4: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab2008-4.html In addition, uyou could contact the EBSA: http://www.dol.gov/dol/contact/

Are you saying: (a) the termination of the 2 participants caused the partial termination, or (b) the plan experienced a PT and these two other participants terminated employment at or near the same time, or © other?

Yes, correct. The IRS has stated often that the 10% excise tax under IRC 4971 is not waivable, but that there is some leeway with respect to the 100% (second) excise tax. (A few prior discussion threads on this topic.)

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46183 Post number 4.

Well....., I've seen similar problems that were traced to a plan sponsor incorrectly re-using a plan number of a (long ago) terminated plan.

OK, I'll bite. What is this?

Data as of 30-JUL-10 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.70 4.70 Aa 4.87 4.86 4.87 A 5.17 5.14 5.16 Baa 5.80 5.90 5.85 Avg 5.28 5.15 5.22 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.33 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.51 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.31

Any of this discussion relevant? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13472

Gary, can we infer that you agree with my calculated values and my definition of the mortality table? (It's always nice to have someone check your number-crunching.)

You make a good point. I removed the link, but I'll leave it to Dave Baker to decide whether the entire post should be removed.

The "upper 12" amounts in my previous post use N(12)/Dx. These amounts use Nx/Dx (assuming annual immediate payments): a52 = 17.650004 a53 = 17.355957 (Obviously, the 12 factor is not relevant.)

Based on your q16, it appears you are using the GAR94 table, projected to 2002, unisex version. Rev. Ruling 2001-62. a52(12) = 206.300043 a53(12) = 202.771486 (Divide by 12 if needed.) Calculations from a spreadsheet that uses l, v, D, N, etc. Standard "upper 12" approximation. BTW, that table was issued under IRC 417(e). It has since been superseded for 417 purposes.

A sponsor and/or trustee could probably send retirees a W-4P (and state form if applicable) once a year (or once a decade, etc.) if desired, but it should not be required just because the paying organization is changing. Remember: retirees don't like change, so keep it (very) simple.

Why does a retiree need a new W-4P?

Just in case this helps: Gray Book 2010 QUESTION 1 PPA: Funding: Ordering Rules for Contributions In Multiple Employer Plan Plan X, a multiple employer plan to which § 413©(4)(A) applies (thereby requiring the rules of § 430 to be applied separately for each employer under the plan as if each employer maintained a separate plan) has three participating employers A, B and C.. During 2009, B stops contributing to the plan, while A and C make contributions to meet their obligations. As a result, the 2009 Schedule SB will show an unpaid minimum on line 39 attributable entirely to B. a) For 2010, will the ordering rules force any contributions from A or C to go towards meeting the unpaid prior year minimum attributable to B? b) For 2011 and later plan years, will the assets be reallocated so as to bring the assets of the B portion up to the level comparable to that required for a spinoff under §414(l)? RESPONSE a) The rules relating to the ordering rules apply separately to each participating employer so that the UMRC attributable to B will have no effect on the manner in which the contributions from A or C are applied. b) Yes. Under §413©(7), plan assets are reallocated each valuation date in accordance with §414(l) to apply the funding requirement of §413©(4)(A). Prior year receivable contributions are included as plan assets for purposes of this calculation only if they are properly included in assets under §1.430(g)-1(d)(1)(i). The above Response is a summary, prepared by representatives of the Program Committee, of the oral responses to the question posed to certain staff members of the Treasury and IRS, which represent only personal views of the individuals who provided them. Accordingly, the Response does not necessarily represent the positions of the Treasury or the IRS and cannot be relied upon by any taxpayer for any purpose. Copyright © 2010, 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 CD-ROM 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.

Similar prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=45337

Here are a few prior discussions that you may find useful: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44578 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40213 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38186

Having a bad day, Andy?

Replies in this duplicate post: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46115

Start saving for retirement.

Huzzah! Huzzah!

I heard it at 2008 (09?) EA meeting. The rationale was not explicitly stated, but it was not difficult to read between the lines that he (and/or someone else at the IRS) wanted to keep the 404 upper limit as low as possible. The "rationale" was definitely related to tax revenue.