david rigby

Is this plan sponsored by a governmental unit or agency?

The plan is the payor, not the ER. Doing the payment that way seems so much cleaner. Is there an advantage to making the paper trail more complex?

Doesn't the plan and/or trust have its own EIN?

Paid up annuity merely helps the insurance company; does not help the ER. Can you get a higher 415 limit by "unterminating" the plan? (Significant comp after 2005?) Cover other EEs / family members? Cover me?

"I'm More Humble Outdoors"

Let's pull this question up front. Any Excel SS calculators?

Duplicate post. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42977

Are you kidding? "Cumbersome" is irrelevant. This is the very essence of Congressional legislation!

The obvious "other" is plan termination. Distribution will occur to the extent funded. But there may be other reasons to argue against this "solution".

Agreed. As an example of "discriminatory in practice", you will have to check overall integration level if 401(l) is part of the plan design.

No attorney I, but here is a thought: You (as PA) have requested the above change to the order, apparently for administrative ease or clarity. That is not the same thing as saying "... no mention of a payment of arrearages..." since any retroactive payments have been (effectively) removed (by you).

Can you use 4980(d)(3)?

Is using a 7/31/09 (EOY) valdate possible? (Don't know if it would help, just asking?)

Not intending to negate the original question, IMHO, this is a special case, and does not apply to all e-distributions. Anyone else?

Have you tried the regulation? http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...171&idno=26

Data as of 31-JUL-09 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.18 5.18 Aa 5.28 5.47 5.38 A 5.68 5.85 5.77 Baa 6.45 6.80 6.63 Avg 5.80 5.82 5.82 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.19 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.72 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.07

The present value under 417(e) is a floor.

Just to be clear, 417(e) is not about "accrued benefit", but about the lump sum present value of the accrued benefit.

Proposed regs use such phrases as "... the plan sponsor may elect..."

Let me guess: the insurance broker is a "friend" of the owner?

Mike's advice is usually very good. No reason to think otherwise in this case. And when he says "ERISA counsel", he means exactly that. The facts you present may indicate a possible error by the plan administrator (perhaps unintentionally). If so, multiple plan participants may have been "shortchanged". Mention that to legal counsel. BTW, some of the readers here will be curious about the outcome. It's OK to post the results, omitting any confidential details.

Nope. We don't use these Boards for sharing such information. Two reasons: - anti-trust concerns (ie, "price-fixing"), - why give information to your competition?

"Routine"? What does that mean?

Maybe not. Other sources are still available. Of course, John's advice is on point: get competent legal advice. BTW, not knowing "Rubicon", I found this on wikipedia:

Maybe. Auditor scrutiny?