david rigby

No. GAM = Group Annuity Mortality.

The regulations hold the sponsor responsible because the statute does. The TPA (or any other vendor) is responsible to the sponsor, not to the IRS/EBSA/PBGC, etc.

From the midde of A14 is this, "If 10% of the number of employees is not an integer, the maximum number of individuals to be treated as key employees by reason of being officers shall be increased to the next integer." Is it reasonable to interpret this as the IRS's opinion that you should round up?

416 regs (adopted 12/31/84). Is Q&A T14 relevant to your question?

OR?

GAT is correct. The original paper presenting both the Group Annuity Table for 1951 (standard abbreviation is "Ga-1951 Table") and projection scale C is here: www.soa.org/library/research/transactions-of-society-of-actuaries/1949-59/1952/january/tsa52v4n918.pdf

I partly agree with Larry. His explanation agrees with my experience. However, I've seen many document restatements that include in the preamble a statement that participants who terminate employment prior to the restatement will have all benefits, rights and features determined under the plan as in effect at the severance of employment. Some, but not all, amendments include similar language. If you have any doubt, make sure you get review by your ERISA counsel.

It depends on the wording of the amendment. Generally, in most cases (changes required by statute are the obvious exception), an inactive participant will not be impacted by a prospective plan amendment. However, there are "sloppy" plan documents/amendments, so an accurate answer requires careful reading of the plan and the amendment. However, if the sponsor wants to apply the new provision to apply to prior VTs, likely that can be accomplished with a very simple clarifying amendment.

... but don't give the state any portion of the 5500 that is not open to public inspection.

No expert I, but is it possible that the IRS is not buying that this was a mistake? Any possibility that the 412(i) plan, under its own terms, is not a valid plan because of the discrimination issuers? [OK, that's wishful thinking. ]

Good advice above. Just an opinion: don't assume a conspiracy or gross incompetence, but they may have made a mistake in the first, or the second, communication to you. Consider a review of whatever documentation is involved, just to make sure there really was an "approval" (or perhaps only an acknowledgement of receipt?). If the prior documentation gave an impression of "approval", there may be no harm in asking (in writing) why they now have a different approval process.

Anything changed since this? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28203

Shouldn't this letter come from the Plan Administrator?

Disqualification means a plan no longer qualifies for favorable tax treatment (generally, deferred taxation of any ER contributions and earnings thereon). Therefore, the tax consequence of disqualification is immediate taxation to the participants of the current value of benefits. Ongoing earnings in the trust would also be taxable. Disqualification does not automatically create a distributable event or plan termination, although the plan may be written to incorporate the latter.

www.freeERISA.com posts 5500's. Generally, they post (for free) the two most recently available forms, and you can purchase others. However, they may not yet have the "latest" form.

I recommend the Search feature. Try keywords such as "state tax" or "state withholding" (with quotes) or other as you desire. Be warned that any link you encounter could (very easily) be out-of-date.

ERISA section 3(39) does not seem to preclude this definition. Review Rev. Ruling 81-159, which addressed a 52/53 week plan year. It may be possible to define the plan year using the last paydate, but this RR implies it must apply for all purposes (vesting service, etc); unlikely that the sponsor could use that definition unless it's in the plan. I might want a letter ruling on it, but that's just me.

In many ways, we are fortunate to have a few announcers today who carry on the great traditions; at the top of my list are Joe Buck (clearly, today's "gold standard") and Joe Morgan.

A CY begins January 1 and ends December 31. But you knew that.

First, to what year does the excise tax apply? If 2009, is there really an unpaid minimum? If prior to 2009, I think the 10% portion of an excise tax cannot be waived (that's the position advocated by the IRS).

Even if no ER contributions, don't forget about possible reallocation of forfeitures, depending on plan provisions.

You are the first to imply that my autograph is worth having. I'll sign your book, but if you post it on the internet, be prepared to hear from my vast staff of attorneys.

Uh oh! Missed allocations?

Why would you treat this person more "harshly" than a new hire?

Not the mantra of the IRS or DOL.