david rigby

IRC 436(f)(3). Note, as spelled out in the (proposed) reg, the restriction is assumed to "apply" if any participant could be limited, without regard to the question "did any participant terminate/retire...?"

I thought the deemed reduction applies only if a 436 restriction would be eliminated. thus, if no (possible) restriction, no reduction. Have I missed something?

You should probably get a copy of IRS Publication 560. http://www.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/publi...NoticesPdf.html call 1-800-TAX-FORM.

... with a possible impact of 401(a)(17), which might be important.

Don't forget that some plans define NRA (vesting) differently than NRD (commencment). For example, I've seen plans with NRA = age 65, while NRD = age 65 + 5th anniversary.

SoCal has a good point, about avoiding commutation functions. However, it may depend on the purpose for which Andy needs this: if used for an actuarial conversion factor, then good precision is desired. If used for valuing liabilities, a close approximation may suffice (assuming any affected liabilities are very small relative to the total).

Why?

Will direct deposit help? i.e., if the bank knows of the death, will this increase the likelihood of feedback from the bank?

This is probably correct, but the owner may be confusing "terminated" with "liquidated". As for fiduciary liability, try the EBSA website. Also, search for the term "orphan plan".

The name is probably based on: - Greenville has a "motor mile", pretty significant for a city its size; - BMW has a nearby plant.

SC indeed! That is the "Greenville Drive". And James Taylor is from NC. BTW, the Salem Red Sox are(is?) in the Carolina League, but the team is located in Salem VA. As always, Go Braves!

O contraire! And who would that be?

Data as of 30-JUN-09 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.37 5.37 Aa 5.75 5.81 5.78 A 5.96 6.25 6.11 Baa 6.96 7.37 7.17 Avg 6.22 6.20 6.21 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.22 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.78 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.10

Yes.

Don't forget to read 411(e)(2).

Hey, I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't the question of "legally binding" require analysis of the context? Is there a contract? Is it in writing? Etc.

This is the Gray Book item mentioned by AndyH: Gray Book Q&A 2009-37 PPA: Other DB Plan Issues: Required Change to Normal Retirement Age Where data is not available, or contractual requirements limit the option of retrenching on a plan’s current low normal retirement date, what options are available for meeting the regulatory requirements for such provisions? RESPONSE The regulation on normal retirement dates requires that a normal retirement age be an age, and requires justification for setting the age below age 62 as permitted by PPA. One issue of concern to the Service is allowing in-service payment. Plans may be amended to add an acceptable NRD while adding an early retirement provision based on the current NRD so that participants who actually retire are provided the same benefit as provided by the current plan. 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 © 2009, 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 CD-ROM 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.

Well......, this is the federal government, after all. I've given up on hoping for common sense.

Mine also.

That's not the test, but your conclusion is probably correct. Buyer should consider asking the seller to vest the participants affected by the sale. Buyer should also consider, for employee relations reasons, giving vesting service to such employees in its own qualified plan(s).

... and discuss with them the possibility of deciding next November (not December or January) if the plan you just froze should be unfrozen.

I know the original post said 401(k), but just to cover the obvious: could this plan be a 403(b) and/or governmental?

1. ?? 2. go ahead, since the purpose of the D is so that the SS Administration does not send a letter. However, out of the 280K D's, it seems likely you can carve out many recent ones, making the final list much smaller.

Isn't "small (informally) defined as "$1 or less"?

IMHO, the (j)(2) calculation is the correct one. See the second paragraph on the instructions for Line 15. I think the (j)(3) calculation can be derived (by the IRS or anyone else) from other information on the form (sorry, no time now to look at the other entries for confirmation).