david rigby

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.)

Data as of 30-OCT-09 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.16 5.16 Aa 5.24 5.22 5.23 A 5.55 5.59 5.57 Baa 6.12 6.42 6.27 Avg 5.64 5.60 5.62 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.86 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.44 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.90

If you have some flexibility (and I'm not sure you do), perhaps consider prorating on the number of actual pay dates vs. hypothetical pay dates in 12 months.

Just for clarity: typo. The reg. cite should be 1.401(a)(9)-4

Is this legit in a qualified plan?

Follow the plan document. The "5-year rule" is not statutory; not even regulatory. It comes from a GCM (General Counsel Memorandum) that is specifically focused on DC plans. Likely, the plan will guide you to vest any participant who has not yet incurred a break-in-service. This will (oversimplified) mean anyone who is active or anyone who terminated employment in the current year. For example, if plan termination date is 12/31/09 (assuming CY plan year), then anyone who terminated during 2009 will get 100% vesting. But, if you have doubts, be sure to get advice from an experienced ERISA attorney.

Yes, and yes. I think your reference to "12/31/09" in (2) should be "12/31/2010"? Likely, the IRS will never object to a change to BOY, consistent with Rev. Proc 2000-40 (and its predecssor RP 95-51).

Please pardon the brain freeze. w/r/t a PPA amendment, are there "PFEA-related" items that should be included? thnx.

Would not that be @ 1/1/2008? PPA section 701(e)(3).

Groan! (You might have to explain this to all the readers who did not take physics or chemistry.)

Before searching for legal opinion, consider that it may just be sloppy. Someone may have set a "rounding parameter" somewhere, but did so incorrectly, and then proceeded without checking.

Calling Ned Ryerson.