david rigby

Does the Plan require a spouse signoff?

Page 12 of this? www.groom.com/media/publication/259_07-7 enclosure.pdf

Most plan administration that identifies a "contingent" beneficiary does so only in case the "primary" beneficiary (usually, as specified by the employee) is not surviving at the time benefits commence to a(ny) beneficiary. Often, this does not extend to identify a "secondary" beneficiary as you describe. Often, the primary beneficiary is permitted to select his/her own secondary beneficiary (if applicable). In your case, perhaps neither scenario has been anticipated. The Plan Administrator (or administrative committee, etc) may need to create an administrative interpretation. If in doubt, don't hestitate to contact the ERISA legal counsel who drafted the plan document. (In 30+ years, I've never seen any plan that paid a pre-retirement J&S to a sister.)

I agree with Andy. Be consistent in your use of rounding and interpolation. If necessary, write it down and treat it as an administrative practice.

Can't you just ask?

Shot in the dark: any possibility there is a second (PS) plan somewhere in the ether?

Amen!

Sue!

OK, what's the other song that begins with the phrase, "It was the third of June..." ? BTW, Happy 60th wedding anniversary to my parents.

Unless age 65, this could be a failure to follow the plan document. Not ususally a good reason to do it incorrectly in the future.

If it's a k-only plan (no ER contributions), then vesting is irrelevant to the discussion. However, if it's k-only, what is the advantage (other than possible savings on admin fees) to a freeze?

Another excellent choice for a search word.

Data as of 28-MAY-10 (Friday before Memorial Day) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.01 5.01 Aa 5.32 5.23 5.28 A 5.57 5.51 5.54 Baa 6.16 6.24 6.20 Avg 5.68 5.50 5.59 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.54 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.02 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.72

I'll accept it.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42132

Lots of prior examples of that. Try the Search feature. A couple of examples, found using keyword "settlement": http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42109 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42542 You might find other useful keywords.

Probably, but you may wish to do additional research on partial terminations. For example, see http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44590, especially post #5.

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.