david rigby

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.

As Mike suggested, the answer is IRC 416©(1)(B):

Not at all. It's my way of saying "there is no insurable event!" (I've ranted on this before, so I'll spare you the repeat.)

Have you considered running the other way?

Scott, I salute your efforts. However, IMHO, govt EEs (whether elected or bureaucratic) are rarely receptive. More frequently, their mindset is the opposite. Remember, we spell it "simplification", but in DC they spell it "complification". I also salute all (OK, most) of the suggestions above. (Nice to know we can appoint ourselves as king, if only for a moment.) I add one more: get rid of the PBGC; failing that, permit a plan sponsor to pay zero premium if plan funding is sufficient to pay all promised liabilities.

Or could arise intentionally for other reasons.

If necessary, amend the plan to make sure the 09 contribution for all HCE's (or Keys) is zero?

That is my experience also. However, if there are any delinquent 5500's for prior years, the EBSA may still want someone to file those. Ask.

Any change to lower in-service distributions to age 62 [per IRC 401(a)(36)] is voluntary.

http://www.benefitscounsel.com/archives/001272.html

Return to the concept of affected participants. Any partial termination means only 100% vesting for affected participants. It does NOT refer to participants terminated in the PY of the event.

I believe that "participant" means as you say. (There may be other opinions.) Not necessarily. Two separate layoffs could be part of the same event. For example, consider a CY plan year; layoff 1 occurs on 12/1/08 and layoff 2 occurs on 2/1/09. The two are probably part of the same event. Other discussion about involuntary terminations "for cause" give credence to assuming these are "employee-initiated". It may help to discuss with qualified ERISA counsel. Since a partial termination always involves a subjective analysis of facts and circumstances, likely it will be important to have good documentation, of facts as well as conclusions.

It may help you to use the Search feature (look to upper right of the page). Use "partial termination" (with quotes) as the search term. One of the relevant hits will be this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42266

This may also be helpful. http://www.prudential.com/view/page/public/14170

One prior discussion that may be relevant: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=39019 (There are probably others.)