david rigby

If you search the regs (which you can find here: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/content/0,,id=96685,00.html), using a key word "short", there is only one brief paragraph that applies.

I've done this, just as AtA suggests. Most retirees will elect the annuity. In hindsight, the communication of this option was very difficult, not well understood, and not worth the bother.

Data as of 30-NOV-09 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.01 5.01 Aa 5.25 5.14 5.20 A 5.54 5.51 5.53 Baa 6.04 6.35 6.20 Avg 5.61 5.50 5.56 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.56 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.09 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.72

What do you mean by "jumped"?

Is this a plan termination?

Made me look. It seems my answer was hasty. I think Sieve is correct. (I saw nothing on point in the regs, or in the Gray Book.) Some earlier discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43303 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14055

Notwithstanding your punctuation, or lack thereof: If the EE is vested 100% at termination, then vested 100% at rehire.

Because the Feds can make up any accounting rules they choose.

http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/premium-.../page16600.html

This may be relevant. Gray Book 2001-35 DC Plan Issues: Minimum DC Allocation for Top-heavy Plan Plan A is a calendar year top-heavy defined contribution plan that covers employees of divisions X, Y and Z. Employees of division Z will no longer be covered by Plan A beginning on January 1, 2001 but the plan will continue to satisfy the nondiscrimination rules under IRC 410(b) and 401(a)(4). Thus, no new employees of division Z will be eligible to become plan participants. Must those employees of division Z who were already participating in Plan A continue to receive top-heavy contribution allocations? If, instead, Plan A were a defined benefit plan, would employees of division Z who were already plan participants continue to receive top-heavy benefit accruals? RESPONSE Employees of division Z who are participants in Plan A must continue to receive top-heavy minimum contributions (or benefit accruals in the case of a defined benefit plan) as if the plan had not been amended to suspend further contributions or benefits. However, no such additional contributions or accruals will be required if the assets and liabilities with respect to employees who are participants in Plan A are spunoff to a separate plan, such separate plan is not top-heavy, has no key employees and is not aggregated with plan A to satisfy the IRC 410(b) or 401(a)(4) nondiscrimination rules. 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 © 2001, 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 diskette 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.

Infinity. To this observer, it seems inappropriate to decide this interpretation question based on the flexibility (or lack thereof) in how the software handles it, or that the TPA might be trying to decide without input of the plan sponsor.

Wow! Sounds like someone thinks the NC can include prior service cost. Probably not. Certainly, the benefit formula can be backloaded, but that word appears to have a different usage in your question. However, a better analysis would include more facts: how many partcipants are included in this design? relative number of HCEs/NHCEs? what type of formula? how many EEs are at the max? Etc.

If I can find them, I'll e-mail a copy. (But don't expect me to find them in the next 2 weeks.)

This is (probably) an administrative interpretation. (Reasonable, IMHO.) Just make sure you are consistent, and non-discriminatory.

I agree that it might be difficult to adminisiter. Plan specifies that a dependent can be covered but the dependent's plan pays first. IF the employee is paying for the dependent coverage, then the cost/benefit ratio of buying dependent coverage looks pretty bad. Or have I missed something?

Maybe it's just me, but isn't the Humor board for things that are actually funny?

Can't locate documentation now, but I recall the PBGC saying (emphatically) that no plan can elect to be covered.

I would start with ERISA; get a context / big picture. Then move on to the textbooks from Anderson and Berin. Both excellent. I love Q1 at the end of chapter 1 in Berin's book. Read all the IRS documents in chronological order. I organized my study and reading materials around IRC section numbers: for example, all 412/430 items in one notebook, with my copy of the code first, then chronological copies of IRS documents. Items related to 415 in another notebook, etc. Effen is correct that reviewing prior exams is very important. Don't ignore any exams for which you have copies, no matter how old. If you can take the seminar at Georgia State University, do so. BTW, no you cannot borrow my copy of Jordan or Kellison.

Can this "problem" be minimized by specifying that the employee's plan is secondary to the spouse's plan?

If you are talking about 2009, you still have time to fix it.

Usually, such examples of DB plan contribution anticipate that the participant has compensation sufficient to fund for a benefit under IRC 415(b)(1)(A). In your example, it appears that 415(b)(1)(B) would apply.

Acronymns: someone has a sense of humor.

This may be a technical concern, via regulation. I'm not sure it would be supported by the intention of the 436 statute.

It's a MP plan, so technically.....

Generally not. Most plans use "eligibility" to refer solely to entry into the plan. Once you meet that definition, you're in the plan. Then use another definition to define who gets an accrual, per Effen's comments in Post 4.