david rigby

It is my understanding that there is no separate procedure/table for withholding, at least for federal tax purposes. See Form W-4P. Two primary differences between W-4 and W-4P: (a) a pensioner can elect zero withholding on the W-4P, and (b) the default (if no W-4P or other withholding election is submitted) is to assume the pensioner is Married with 3 Exemptions, and then use the regular withholding table/formula. Clarifying edit: (a) and (b) above apply to periodic payments, not to payments eligible for rollover.

Have you considered the possibility that the ER was a government employer at the time, but is no longer?

Aren't non-ERISA plans exempt from ERISA?

Data as of 30-JUN-10 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.66 4.66 Aa 4.95 4.86 4.91 A 5.21 5.17 5.19 Baa 6.00 6.10 6.05 Avg 5.39 5.20 5.30 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.40 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.69 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.37

Surprise!

I agree w/ Andy. "... determined as of the first day of the Plan Year ..." implies (to me, at least) a rate determined throughout the last month of the preceding plan year.

It's been a temporary reprieve for several years, with Congress scheduling a future date for the reduction, followed by a (usually) last-minute deferral of the cut.

It is my understanding that the "Preservation of Access to Care for Medicare Beneficiaries and Pension Relief Act of 2010" reversed expected cuts in Medicare payments. Have I missed something?

I've changed my mind. I don't think Japan is a dark horse.

Authored by Ellen Schultz. Now there's a surprise.

It seems unlikely that a divorce decree and/or a QDRO could require this, unless the the plan already permitted it. Putting such items in a QDRO may not be wise. They can always be supplied in a non-public document.

"Surplus assets" usually has meaning only at plan termination. If the plan is ongoing, then the overfunding can be (at least partially) used up thru skilled plan design and additional years of service. If the plan formula is not fully integrated, that is a good place to start. If the owners "do not want to have to provide benefits to staff in order to increase their benefits", compare that to paying excise taxes when the plan is terminated.

Are you suggesting that being covered by the PBGC is = to some "knight in shining armor"? Yikes!

It is likely the plan will not automatically do anything to the J&S benefit in event of a divorce. See IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A25. Also, you may find some other prior discussions, such as this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44361

Can: 1. Yes. 2. All the way. Likelihood: 1. 50/50 2. 10 pct I'll be watching. Dark horse: Japan

Of course, if such a provision is added to a plan, 411d6 would be violated if it applied to benefits already accrued.

The form is pretty simple. Modification seems unlikely. From 2009 instructions for Form 5500:

Do we know that the plan says that? Do we know that this is a DC plan?

I agree w/ rcline46. It's probably not a partial termination, but the sponsor has the option of being more generous. Although not likely, watch out for any resulting discrimination. If in doubt, the sponsor should contact its ERISA counsel.

I think your scenario is, or should be, permissible. Partially related comment: If the plan states that excess assets are allocated to participants, and if there would be non-zero excess assets under a standard termination, would your proposed scenario cause a fiduciary violation in any way?

I lean toward (b). If the beneficiary put forth a good argument in favor of ©, I might be sympathetic. Of course, if the PA has a precedent or administrative practice, that should be included. While Effen's suggestion of an escrow account might be nice, the PA still has to account for the possibility that the designated beneficiary will never show up, or is currently deceased, in which case the PA (and/or the plan) may have procedures for designating a contingent beneficiary.

Good idea, but you will have 410a26 problems if it is a DB plan.

I think there has been a similar discussion thread. Perhaps the Search feature will be useful.

If this means that the account has already been transferred to the beneficiary, prior to the beneficiary's death, then masteff's comment is exactly correct. But if the quote means something else, then you may have to search the plan document for direction on how to define a contingent beneficiary.