david rigby

How 'bout the "understand" part?

Before dealing w/ other Qs, it may be prudent to clarify this. If Company A purchased Company B, isn't A now the sponsor of Plan B, thru the plan's successor language?

Some similar discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26068

Has it been your experience that state courts always know, understand and follow such precedent?

Anyone do a 401(m) test?

It may be reasonable to assume the receiving plan wants absolute documentation of the participant's initial election. Provide it. That said, it may be that a cleaner method of resolution is to reverse the entire transaction, with proper documentation, and start over. If it were me, I would advise my ERISA attorney which course of action I had selected.

See IRC 430(h)(3). The NC and FT of a plan should closely reflect the best estimate of the Plan's actual cost. Different purposes. Not all plans pay lump sums. The use of a 50/50 blend to define a unisex table is expedient and arbitrary, but not necessarily representative of a plan's population. Search for "Stop the Insanity" from a previous Enrolled Actuaries Meeting (2003?).

True it's not an option. Not necessarily correct, I'm focusing on the timing. For example, 411(d)(6) would prevent changing NRA from "age 65" to "later of age 65 and fifth anniversary", except with respect to future accruals. (I don't know if this example is relevant.)

Yeah, I was just hoping someone may have seen something I did not. Wishful thinking. <Sigh>

Yes, as described in the Notice.

There are sex-distinct tables because they are required for the NC and FT.

Reviewing two documents for the same plan. 1. Original document states that under $5K lump sums will be distributed within 90 days after end of plan year of termination of employment. 2. Proposed document states that under $5K lump sums will be distributed after a break-in-service. Does 2 fail 411(d)(6)?

Andy is correct. See IRS Notice 2008-85. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96699,00.html

Married. Used to it.

Let's see if this link works: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4126: The current language of HR4126 indicates that target plans would not get any special treatment, so they would suffer the same fate as any cross-tested DC plan. However, cash balance plans do get special treatment. Just as interesting is the proposed change to 410(b). As one with actuarial letters after my name, I believe (of course) that everyone should have a DB plan, and all actuaries should be fully employed. But, neither the Congress nor the IRS has asked for my opinion.

It may be hasty to assume that any money given to any government will be used to enhance the lives of anyone.

Boom! Well done, Mike.

See Interest Rates on this page: http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/index.html

Disagree. Professional courtesy. There may also be issues w/r/t outstanding invoices and/or service agreement.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-92.pdf

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-97.pdf You can subscribe to IRS GuideWire here: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/content/0,,id=154810,00.html

Extension in IRS Notice 2009-97, released today.

Never once encountered an auditor who cared about the FAS35 assumptions. Since PVAB (fas35) and ABO (fas87) and funding target (IRS) are essentially the same concept, there should be value in having them be the same (or similar). But not required. They have different purposes, so don't overlook the documentation of the assumptions. FAS35 has been around a long time (1980), well before the concept of ABO and funding target, and well before any financial statement recognition. It is much less important now.

And an actuary who is familiar with FAS 87/158.

Need more info about what you mean by "convert".