david rigby

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?

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?