david rigby

Not restricted to PPA.

I think you answered your own question. Ned gets them.

There are lots of actuaries more expert at 415 than I, but I don't think it's that simple. For example, if the high-3 comp is $100K (based on some prior years) but the current comp is $50K, the 415 limit will be based on the former. If the current comp and all expected future comp is less than some prior high-3, then the actuary may be able to accomodate your goal. I'll leave it to the experts.

IRS? Really? Not the DOL?

Under PPA, it could be relevant for a DB plan, if the "extra" expense causes the plan's funded ratio to drop below an important trigger.

Not too loud. Congress may think that more taxes is better.

You might have to do your own research, but Carol Calhoun has posted some of hers. http://benefitsattorney.com/index.php

Perhaps, but don't forget the possibilty of indirect costs: smaller asset base may mean larger percentage admin cost for each plan, and/or reduced access to certain investment options or services.

Seems like an expensive audit fee in the example cited. Avoiding an audit fee should be balanced with any increase in other administative costs, both direct and indirect, due to having two plans. I think there are a couple of earlier discussion threads about this.

Consider the possibility that non-payment of premiums is the employee's way of saying, "I'm gone" ?

Look at Act section 201(b)(1), modifying IRC 430©: "... with respect to the shortfall amortization base of a plan for any eligible plan year..." implies that the change is only for the base created in a particular year. Other interpretation may be valid. Is that how you read it?

DOL Reg. 2520.104b-2(a): "... on or before..."

You do not need such a specific reference (although the agent may "need" it). Back up to the first sentence of that first paragraph. "... if any benefits under the plan are provided by an insurance company, insurance service, or other similar organization (such as Blue Cross, Blue Shield, or a health maintenance organization)..." IMHO, you are done proving your point. Ask the agent to prove otherwise.

You could refer to the first paragraph of the Schedule A instructions on page 19: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2009-5500inst.pdf on page

Very surprising that this has not happened before. No matter what your procedure, the very existence of the prorated payment is the source of the problem. Does the plan document require this partial payment?

What does the plan say?

There is nothing in the act that provides different application for government plans.

Correct. See Reg. 1.430(g)-1(f)(3). Note that Rev. Proc 2000-40 (section 3.10) provides blanket permission to change to FMV anytime. Such permission does not exist in the current reg, although it is difficult to imagine the IRS denying such request.

Well, there's a shock.

The sponsor / PA is responsible for the filing, so "new owner"

Does this previous discussion help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17171

As always, find out what the charge covers before paying it. Is she asking you to pay half of the attorney's charge for drafting the DRO? something else?

What he said.

Hockey? Ugh! Go Braves!

Does plan termination and distribution create a new EOY?