david rigby

1. No. It depends on plan provisions. 2. Maybe. Many plans require separation of employment (without regard to hours worked) in order for any benefit commencement. However, plan provisions may incorporate IRC 401(a)(36), thus permitting certain distributions. Frozen status, or change of sponsor/employer, should not be relevant to the Qs.

See IRC 401(a)(36). The plan's ERISA attorney can amend the plan for this. The plan's actuary can tell you the increase in funding cost, if any.

J Simmons' first quote immediately above means that the IRS assumes all terminations (during the applicable period) are ER-initiated unless and until the ER shows otherwise. Thus, he concludes (correctly) that some terminations might not receive full vesting, based on (yes, you've heard it before) the relevant facts and circumstances.

Could the ER pay the former EE cash (whether or not with a tax gross-up) that represents the EE premium under COBRA for 2 months?

Does not apply. See 401(a)(29).

Does the DC plan already have a death benefit? (Probably.)

The word "distribution" does not appear in 436(d), except in the title of that subsection. Otherwise, the statute uses the word "payment". IMHO, a loan payment would fail a strict reading of 436(d)(5). However, perhaps there is other useful reading in the committee reports (etc).

I believe that the EE benefits portions of EGTRRA were made permanent in PPA06. However, other portions of EGTRRA still have a sunset, such as the overall individual tax rates. Can anyone else elaborate?

The hazard of posting duplicate messages: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42810

I agree w/ Andy. What if we ignore the QDRO and H pays W alimony of $2500 per month? Is it the same result (except no QDRO expense)?

Disagree. If vesting service were frozen (in this case), how does that square with 411(a)(4)?

A pretty horrible quote from an actuary. Perhaps that actuary has forgotten that no matter what social manipulation you push, it won't change the reality of longevity.

OR?

Those people need to go back to school.

Does the ERPA know how to do research? Instructions for Form 8821 include:

OK, this is picky. If there is already guidance on this point, please point me to it. I have not found any direct guidance on this, so I'm suggesting some: Section 101© or WRERA amended IRC 436(d)(5) by adding this sentence: "Such term shall not include the payment of a benefit which under section 411(a)(11) may be immediately distributed without the consent of the participant." 411(a)(11)(A) reads" "If the present value of any nonforfeitable accrued benefit exceeds $5,000 a plan meets the requirements of this paragraph only if such plan provides that such benefit may not be immediately distributed without the consent of the participant." The WRERA summary by the Congressional Research Service, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40171_20090129.pdf, and the Technical Explanation by the Joint Tax Committee, http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=...own&id=1252, both refer to "$5,000". However, many plans have been amended to change the default payout limit from $5,000 to $1,000. Once can read the statute very "tightly" and suggest that the 436 restriction applies to the dollar limit in the plan, even if less than $5,000. Alternatively, one can read the committee reports and suggest that Congress meant $5,000, even if the plan uses a lower limit. I suggest the latter approach. Any thoughts?

Do you need another document for existing plans? Don't the principles apply to any search for missing participants?

Thank you for using the technical term.

Search these Message Boards (that is always good advice) for links to the IRS and SSA letter forwarding programs.

No discussion about trusts or asset pools. Not sure what you mean. Does changing the current benefit structure (in this case, for the purpose of impacting one person) create a prior benefit structure? (I don't know, just asking.)

Will this cause a failure under 1.401(a)(26)-3?

Maybe nothing. Is it a material change?

IMHO, the existence of the NC is separate from the issue of the plan termination and distribution. I see no problem with showing a NC.

1. Can you use a val date of 12/31/08 if the plan no longer exists? Would the correct val date be EOY = 10/31/08? 2. Why is a non-zero NC a problem?

10 years? PPA sec. 407.