david rigby

It appears so. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fedreg/final/20071116.pdf

I agree, but I'm not placing any bets on how the IRS will view this. Good question for the Gray Book?

Any and all expenses that you expect to be paid by the plan.IMHO, rounding is acceptable.

Only if you EXPECT the plan to pay them.

As best I recall, the SS cola is not permitted to be negative.

jmrodrig, - Emphasis on Andy's "... may elect ..." - Theoretically, the ER can elect to add a portion, not necessarily all, of the excess to the PFB.

Does the DOL have any jurisdiction over TPA providers? More likely, the DOL has noticed a "pattern" that coincides with a particular TPA, and is auditing selected plans that are serviced by that TPA. Which is it?

1. I've seen nothing that would exempt a 1-person plan. 2. Doesn't the AFN apply only to PBGC-covered plans?

Should we assume that is the reason it's your "old" job?

Can't argue with that!How about 1?

Your attorney will have to advise you if this is a violation of prior divorce order, etc.

Minor expansion on the second paragraph of Mike's comments: while using the life expectancy is not an exact PV calculation, it can provide a "quick and dirty" amount, useful for approximations or comparisons.

The latter, assuming the discussion is not focused on changing the lookback month for a LS present value. I think the response from carrots is correct, except that each optional form stands on its own for this comparison.

Effen is being cautious. No disrespect, but I suggest common sense. You should not have to spend $ on legal advice to figure out a simple solution. This is a simple "oops", and a simple solution is appropriate. A reimbursement check sounds simple, and advisable.

Where do you see this?

Might be difficult to find online copy. Perhaps you can contact the Library of Congress for a copy. http://thomas.loc.gov/

Duplicate post. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43136

Who is revoking? What does the plan say? Many plans permit the retiring EE to change his/her election anytime before the first payment is made.

At $40K, the $5K reduction is in the 32% bracket for calculating SS benefits. 32% of $5000 is $1600, so your $1608 sounds right. Has your analysis included any impact of state taxes?

If the AFTAP is between 60% and 80%, then one restriction applies. Notice required. If the AFTAP later changes and is less than 60%, then another restriction applies. Notice required. "For an individual age 55 is this $349,238?" Please detail where you got (or derived) this amount.

It's not as new as you think.

I know this is a long shot, but here goes. Is there a Carryover Balance?

For the edification of other readers, here is the Gray Book Q&A. Gray Book 2008-7 PPA Funding: Reflecting Plan Amendments Assume a calendar year plan with a January 1 valuation date has an amendment adopted during 2007 that takes effect on July 1, 2008. The amendment increases the plan's flat benefit from $30/month times service to $32/month times all service. Per the proposed regulations on minimum funding (issued on December 28, 2007), the amendment must be reflected in the 2008 plan year valuation. What is the proper approach to reflect the amendment in the valuation? (a) Both the Funding Target (FT) at January 1, 2008 and the Target Normal Cost TNC for 2008 are based on $32. (b) The FT is based on the $30 multiplier. The increase in accrued benefits from $30 to $32 should be treated as benefits accrued or earned during 2008 and reflected in the TNC. For example, for a participant with 10 years of service on January 1, 2008, the FT would be based on an annual benefit of $3,600 (i.e., $30 x 10 x 12). The TNC would reflect the increase in the annual benefit from $3,600 at the beginning of the year to $4,224 (i.e., $32 x 11 x 12) at the end of the year, or $624. Would the answer be different if the amendment was effective on January 1, 2008? January 1, 2009? Would the answer be different if the amendment applied only to benefit service after July 1, 2008? Would the answer be different if the amendment were adopted during 2008, but after January 1? RESPONSE Under the proposed regulations, (a) is the correct approach and would also apply if the amendment was effective on any day during the 2008 plan year (and would be ignored if effective in a later plan year). If the amendment applied only to benefit service after July 1, 2008, then the FT at January 1, 2008 should be based on $30. The TNC for the 2008 plan year should reflect six months of benefit accrual at $30 and an additional six months of benefit accrual at $32. If the amendment were adopted in 2008, but after January 1, 2008, then it would be ignored unless a IRC §412(d)(2) election is made. 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 © 2008, 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.

It appears this is a plan covering some segment of NYC retirees. Sounds like a governmental plan, but check carefully. Be careful assuming that governmental plans are subject to QDRO procedures. Also, it appears this is a defined benefit plan (just a guess after 20 seconds of internet skimming), so be careful about using the word "account". Might be applicable, might not. This could affect the plan administrator's understanding of how to apply the proposed DRO.

A few random thoughts: - could the "error" be that pre-ret decrements were used, but not properly documented? - any possibility that you valued TH minimums but they were previously omitted? - is at-risk part of this analysis?