david rigby

Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

The TPA's legal counsel will probably ask to see a copy of the service agreement between the TPA and the plan sponsor.

Interesting. I suggest your proposed response is reasonable. However, you should have plenty of space, with creative "spelling". Something like "frozen AB + cash balance"?

Don't overlook the potential for interaction with qualified plans, such as the spousal survivor requirements.

I think Mercer has copyrighted the term.

Search for "retirement shares". Mercer design.

... and it's very easy to create a phony form just for this purpose. Seems that the ER is putting all its eggs in one basket, a leaky one at that.

Peter, IMHO, the practioner has a responsibility to act professionally, which (to my mind) means to draw attention to any perceived problems. Stating "tax-disqualified" is a conclusion that may not yet be warranted. Yes, it's possible, but there may be facts not yet in evidence. [As an Enrolled Actuary, even if all the facts are known, I would try to avoid stating "disqualified" in all cases, believing that is the prerogative of the attorney and/or the CPA.] If the practioner has any ERISA "qualifications" (Enrolled Actuary, atty, CPA, Enrolled Agent, ERPA), then I suggest replacing "responsibility" with "duty". If the practioner has any actuarial credentials, the actuary must also ensure compliance with Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs) as well as the Actuarial Code of Conduct.

... and in extreme cases, consider the possibility that this is a client you don't want.

QDROphile is correct. It might be hasty to assume that state/local law is silent on this area.

Is there a distributable event under the plan?

Very important. From PPACA Therefore, if the "kid" is not a dependent, the plan/employer is not required to provide coverage. (It might provide coverage for another reason, but not for this one.) That's how I read it; I would be interested in other opinions.

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.