david rigby

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42789

Try the Search feature for previous discussion threads on this topic. A good search term might be "missing participant" or "lost participant".

My interpretation is that the postmark should be by the 120th day.

While Gary's question may be a valid inquiry for someone desiring to provide service to his/her clients, it does seem to cross the line with respect to the purpose of these Message Boards. From the About BenefitsLink page: "Our purpose is to support the people who administer, give compliance advice about, design, make policy for, or otherwise are concerned with, employee benefit plans in the United States sponsored by either private or governmental employers. Information presented here is designed to help people working directly or as service-providers for employers of all sizes. " The Boards are a very valuable tool for sharing information, and we are very grateful to Dave Baker for BenefitsLink. Many users would be disappointed if the Boards were no longer available, or lost credibility, because of activities or postings that appear related only to "how much can I charge". Sometimes a reply appears to be irrelevant to the orginal topic. We all benefit by avoiding "clutter", but sometimes there is another purpose: - Just because a reply is "lighthearted" does not mean it is irrelevant; - You are not required to respond to every reply; - Some replies really are intended as jokes; although they may be distracting to the message, sometimes they can be useful to keep us from taking ourselves too seriously; - Some people reply with worthwhile comments, but their phrasing may be inadequate and distort the intended message (that's why we have the ability to edit our messages); we just have to accept their flaws, forgive them, and hope they forgive us as well; - Not everyone takes, or gives, criticism well; - None of us knows everything, so we do well when we are willing to listen to others.

I think Tom has it correct: if the increase is defined by the year-over-year increase in the CPI (or any other index), then 2011 will reflect a one-year increase. BTW, in separate correspondence, the SSA has confirmed my estimate: the wage base would have been $109,200.

In case you were following the Continental Airlines case, where several pilots allegedly (?) created sham divorces so that a QDRO could be used to get at qualified plan money, it appears the judge has said "none of your business" to the company. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6675081.html

I don't discuss fees here.

What kind of FAS report? 87? 106? Other?

I think there are several prior discussion threads that are pretty close to your scenario.

I estimate the 2010 SSWB would have been $109,200 if not constrained by the COLA. I looked for this on the SS website, but could not find an anwer: assuming next year's COLA is greater than zero, I wonder if that means the 2011 wage base will reflect two years of increase. Anyone have any insight?

How 'bout that old standby: "what does the plan say?"

Correct. I meant your unpaid bills, if any.

Unpaid invoices should be identified first (not necessarily paid first). Then discuss ongoing services. Sure, they might be combined in a more inclusive engagement, but at least you will have addressed them.

Your responsibility is to act professionally. Paid? Yes. Tell the PBGC what you think is reasonable, and be prepared to negotiate. If there are unpaid invoices, deal with those separately. Just an opinon.

Today's Federal Register. 80+ pages!

Under IRC 436, if burning any COB will eliminate a restriction, then the burn is not optional. Therefore, the AFTAP occurs after the burn, not before.

What elections are permitted under the plan? lump sum in cash? lump sum as rollover? anything else?

You can probably find a CBO estimate of any hypothetical situation. Then you have to decide if it has any validity.

BTW, EBSA regs here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/main.html

BTW, if your concern is paying taxes, don't forget that you can defer taxes by using a rollover to an IRA. If you want to later roll that amount somewhere else, it may be best to use an IRA that is separate from all your other IRA's. You can order a copy of IRS Publication 590 at www.irs.gov.

Stop? Not per se, but it is (in my observation) pretty common for DB plans to have language that offsets benefits received against future accruals. The net effect is almost always a benefit (to that employee/retiree) that does not increase. This characteristic helps make 401(a)(36) a valuable option to encourage phased early retirement.

I'll say it.

ERISA section 4041 defines two types of terminations: standard and distress. Section 4042 discusses a termination inititated by the PBGC. An involuntary termination has (approximately) the same net effect as a distress termination, but there is no "application" for the former. Notice the prominent use of the word "bankruptcy" in discussing a distress termination. http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/plan-ter.../page13261.html

Obviously, the solution is to have more DB plans!

My understanding of "final 5500" is a requirement of zero assets and zero participants. Unless the "money in the trust" exists only because the (for example 12/29/08) check has not yet been cashed by 12/31/08, then you don't have zero assets at EOY. Anyone else have other information?