david rigby

I'm surprised that the plan document does not already spell out a procedure. If not, the document should be amended first. IMHO, you probably have some flexibility: - proportional to PVAB; - use the PBGC procedure (but don't change it one iota); - all NCHE's first, then PVAB ratio for HCEs; - other?? Just an opinion.

Most likely, the due date (if any) is governed by state law (or possibly local law).

Is this really a rollover? Does the plan permit the participant to "return" the funds? Just asking.

Probably not. What does the plan say? Perhaps I misread the question. If you are asking if the NRA can be used to determine the benefit and/or lump sum, then "probably not". If you are asking if the plan termination date should be used as a retirement date for the determination of the benefit and/or lump sum, that is probably what the plan will direct you to do.

Difficult to read the table in Tom's post. However, I agree with Austin's value: at age 65, IA83 table, 8.0%, female, the APR is 119.7554

Not the first person who can't understand the difference between effective date and adoption date.

Nice that you are so direct, Sieve.

Well ... the APR is a constant after you have chosen the interest rate and mortality table.

... or the ER could ask him how he is harmed by receiving something free. ... or the ER could ask itself/himself/herself about whether such employee...

Good advice from GMK. The norm is that the J&S goes to the person who was the spouse at the benefit commencement date; see IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A25.

Belgarath points are very good, especially Let's also take the high road, not just the convenient road. You will never regret a high level of personal integrity.

I wonder if sending the withholding to the Department of Transportation (?) is the correct procedure.

I love it when people quote Sal Tripodi.

The most recent one is Notice 2010-14. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-14.pdf (It's incorrectly labeled as 2009-14, but they will probably fix it.) In general, you can find many IRS documents (but not regulations) here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/, although not everything is posted immediately.

Just a hunch: when the financial advisor says "before it matures", she/he means "before you die". I suggest looking at what happens in that event: where does the death benefit go / what is the definition of a death benefit in the Plan? If the answer(s) are not what the plan sponsor wants, then now is the time to change the plan.

... and the death rate for the first few days of 2010.

Having the word "matures" in quotes raises the question of what is really (really) meant by the statement. Many decades ago, an insured might get a check from an insurance company at age 100 (along with lots of publicity) because the insurance policy "matured". Very unlikely that any such event occurs anymore.

If so stated by the plan / amendment, yes. Otherwise, it seems inappropriate to impute a proration.

There may be some prior discussions on this topic. Does this one help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42456

A few prior discussions. Try using the Search feature, with keyword "raffle".

... coverage being the lesser of the two concerns. You may end up combining these two plans for testing purposes.

You don't "contribute" to the stock market; you invest in the stock market. Contributions to the DB plan are from compensation/corporate profits; limits are based on IRC 412/430 (minimum) and 404 (maximum). I see no relevance to the source of the cash flow, as long as the limits are observed.

NC probably has one salary scale included. The limit under IRC 404 may need more than one year's increase.

Have you reviewed Rev. Proc. 2008-50?

A 401(k) plan is a subset of the universe of 401(a) plans.