david rigby

Your facts imply a mistake by the trustee. Is that correct? Is the bank the plan sponsor or the trustee? If the bank is the trustee (and not also the sponsor), does it have the same rights as the the plan or the plan administrator? Perhaps the PA has standing to adjust/recoup future payments to correct its mistake, but does the trustee have the same standing? (I don't know, just asking.)

Was the participant a VT before you took over as TPA? - If no, then you would have found (or not found) a distribution in the assets, thus confirming the current status. - If yes, then this sounds like a data question for the plan sponsor to answer. Just a guess.

Really, you! The comments by AtA and SoCal are exactly on point. Averaging removes some volatility but adds some complexity. You decide which is best for you (which is characteristic of more than one design decision). In my experience, using a one-year stability period is very common. A one-month lookback is probably not enough, but the sponsor has reasonable flexibility in choosing that definition.

True, but that's not the only way to become an HCE.

Duplicate post, with a response. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=39718

Sounds like the right answer, but another possibility is that your account simply lost money in the general market decline.

Yep.

Yep, and it happens even without controlled group issues: perhaps identical plans for location A and location B.

You may have answered your own questions. The amounts withheld from pay should be defined by the plan document and/or the CBA. It is unlikely pre-tax amounts would be defined for a defined benefit plan. (Is this a defined benefit plan?) However, it may be prudent that someone investigate how the payroll function worked in practice. Assuming after-tax, yes these amounts would later be distrbuted on an after-tax basis. But check the plan document (and IRC 72) for the coordination between after-tax and pre-tax amounts.

You are hereby charged with renting, and watching, the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey".

I don't have any specific cites, but SoCal's summary is consistent with my previous review of this topic.

A reference some of these young whippersnappers may not get.

Depends on state statute. Governmental plans are exempt from IRC 411, to the extent it meets certain requirements as in effect 09/01/1974.

... within the contraints of the plan document, local statute, and (most commonly) state statute.

You can resign, but you cannot fire a client. Follow your written agreement. Try the Search feature for a few prior similar discussion threads.

TGIF

1. Sieve, doesn't the answer depend on whether A was merged into B, or B merged into A? 2. If the surviving plan does not have a loan provision, could it be amended to "retain" only those loans existing at the date of merger, thus avoiding the future loan problem?

How about a plan amendment? Assuming there is an amendment, it should state "... no new participants after xx/xx/xx..."

IMHO, auditors are usually happy to see a well-defined technique. As long as the technique is valid, then the resulting rate is valid. Use of one technique should not preclude you from fine-tuning that technique in later years. A rate is not "working well" based on how close the assets and liabilities are. The discount rate is determined without regard to the assets.

It's good to see correct technical terms in use. IMHO, yes you do have a problem. Not that you have to divulge the details here, but saying "we don't have the data" is much easier than actually searching for the data. Has that avenue been explored? While your proposal may be a reasonable suggestion around a problem, it's probably important to address the problem first, and document how you've attacked that problem. On the other hand, if you've addressed it, with no success, could you accomplish your goal thru an IRS DL? Just thoughts.

Just my opinion, but anyone who can use this phrase probably doesn't have to worry about the original question.

... or do you reject the DRO as not meeting the requirements of a QDRO?

Failure to follow plan document? disqualification?

Good discussion from Andy and SoCal. Here's a few more: - Upon solving for the "equivalent rate", do you round the result? I suggest rounding is permissible, but be careful about rounding too much, lest you lose the credibility of your technique. - The IRS yield curve goes to 100 years. Since there aren't any such long-term bonds, the IRS has created a technique for extrapolating such rates. Some observers are skeptical (although rates beyond 50 years are usually not a significant portion of the total liability). - The Citigroup yield curve stops at 30 years. Your plan may have a reasonable portion of its liability after that point, so think carefully about how to address that. - The Citigroup yield curve comes with its own average rate each month, described as the equivalent rate for a "typical" plan. I have searched without success for their description of such plan. Be careful about assuming that one rate is valid for every plan. It's not clear (to me, at least) that the original poster is an actuary. If not, I suggest engaging an actuary with appropriate FAS87/158 experience.

Is this one question or two?