david rigby

Will you accept a Gray Book response? Gray Book 2008-42 May an accrued benefit decrease during continued employment due to any of the following: a) Increases in a Social Security offset? b) Increases in covered compensation? c) Reductions in average compensation? d) Reductions in the maximum benefit limitations under 415 (other than legislation or changes in response to a variable index)? e) Investment performance underlying a variable annuity? RESPONSE a) Yes, but only to the extent that the offset meets the restrictions specified in Rev. Rule 84-45 and is in keeping with the qualification rule stated in IRC §401(a)(15). b) and c) No. In this situation, the reduction would be on account of increasing service since the reduction would not occur if the participant terminated employment. A reduction in benefits due to increases in age or service would violate IRC §411(b)(1)(G). This was the rationale behind the answer to Question 33 from the 2003 Gray Book which dealt with situation c) above. d) Where a post age 65 actuarial increase would be limited by the compensation limit as capped by IRC §401(a)(17), the benefits must be started, or “suspended”, to avoid an impermissible forfeiture. Benefits accrued prior to the IRC §415 regulatory effective date would be insulated from having to make this change and could continue to provide actuarial increases in spite of the 401(a)(17) limit. In addition, note that for benefits accrued after the regulatory effective date and prior to adoption of plan amendments, regulation §1.411(d)-3 would limit the ability to add a suspension of benefits approach. Moreover, for participants who have attained age 70-1/2, suspension of benefits would generally not be permitted. e) Yes. In this case the reduction is not on account of age, service or plan amendment. The above Response is a summary, prepared by representatives of the Program Committee, of the oral responses to the question posed to certain staff members of the Treasury and IRS, which represent only personal views of the individuals who provided them. Accordingly, the Response does not necessarily represent the positions of the Treasury or the IRS and cannot be relied upon by any taxpayer for any purpose. Copyright © 2008, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the CD-ROM for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

Generally, discussing pricing on these Message Boards is discouraged. Simply, the value of sharing information is too valuable risk losing this resource due to a charge of "price-fixing". For your particular question, you may wish to consider seeking bids from other vendors. You will probably find a wide variation, but be sure to evaluate the context: some vendors will charge less for the 5500 merely because it is included with other services. Others will charge less because they do it in greater numbers and get economy of scale.

Not your question, but I usually recommend the opposite, unless the amounts are too small to bother. The reason is to retain as much funding flexibility as possible.

Generally, I trust advice from www.komando.com

Without commenting on smartphones, this included discussion about the HP12C, and others: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=41289

Good question. I'm not one to subscribe "smart" to an IRS computer. My understanding is that the 10% excise tax is due immediately, so if the ER waits until the IRS asks for it, they may impose some penalty and/or interest. Due dates on page 2 of the Form 5330 Instructions, http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=200959,00.html

I think the IRS expects the PA to pay a 10% excise tax.

If you amend to allow the retiree to elect a lump sum, don't forget the spousal election.

Is this a distress (or involuntary) termination?

While such stories are sad, and BOA and others may have "security holes", ultimately the blame must lie with those who steal.

Although a plan termination is in process, day-to-day plan administration does not stop. - If the EE wants to retire, then do so under the plan. The PA may accomplish this by purchasing an annuity (it's permitted by the plan, isn't it?). - Alternateively, if the PA wants to amend the plan to add a lump sum option for a retiring EE, not sure if this is permissible. Note that such amendment will change the overall plan liability, so it is advisable to review the instructions for Form 500. http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/plan-ter.../page13260.html

That's a very small accrued benefit. Are you sure it's under $5K?

When searching, don't forget to check for deceased. This link is one mechanism for doing so: http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/

One wonders if this plan passes 410(b).

Is the Plan "in the hole"?

Can the ER adjust the next paycheck to "true up"?

Ditto advice from SoCal and masteff. This may not a "wash" as you imply, so do each step separately and completely. As implied in Post #1, this situation will recur. If so, Andy correctly advises a plan termination, before the next RMD is due.

Charts on McKay-Hockman site: http://www.mhco.com/Library/Charts_010407.html

Data as of 26-FEB-10 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.21 5.21 Aa 5.58 5.43 5.51 A 5.77 5.69 5.73 Baa 6.17 6.29 6.23 Avg 5.84 5.65 5.75 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.59 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.27 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.04

QDROphile is correct. If the NQ plan does not have any existing language, it may be prudent to consider if there is any precedent. At any rate, perhaps the plan sponsor should take this opportunity to amend the plan to incorporate some provisions for beneficiary identification. This might emulate the qualified plan, but is not required to do so.

Assuming I've read my own chart correctly, an EE with 2008 comp > 105K will be an HCE in 2009.

The rules for any plan are (one hopes) contained in the plan itself.

Thou shalt not violate 415.

Another opportunity for an acronym? HQIA?

Less dollars going into the retirement program (one or more plans), then less dollars coming out in the form of benefits. Period.