david rigby

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).

I've done several. Sieve's response is correct. However, PBGC approval is not the only step that has an associated timeline. The plan's actuary should be able to handle this.

There may be some discussion in prior threads. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40331 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=41013 Search for others.

to educate the rest of us, can you post the result?

Not sure if anyone on this Board can provide any additional (useful) information. Clarify with the provider(s)?

If the plan is frozen, that changes the projected benefit, doesn't it? Sounds like the definition of the death benefit (100 x proj benefit) is unchanged, but the amount of the proj benefit has changed.

ERISA 1974 - $1,750. REA 1984 - $3,500. Taxpayer Relief Act 1997 - $5,000

Agreed. That technique is much easier to defend.

"... an idea was suggested..." I'll bet the "suggester" has a personal motive that has nothing to do with sound benefit policy or what's best for the plan sponsor. This sounds like it requires a distributable event, and that the only valid event is plan termination. If so, you cannot pay the lump sum only on the condition of rollover.

I've seen this before. While it might be convenient, it may not be kosher. As per Andy's references to multiple IRC sections (and the corresponding ERISA Title I sections), this plan sponsor should make sure this practice is carefully reviewed by its ERISA attorney.

Data as of 29-MAY-09 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.36 5.36 Aa 6.22 6.18 6.20 A 6.32 6.71 6.52 Baa 7.56 7.95 7.76 Avg 6.70 6.55 6.63

Yes, and we are back to the discussion of which expenses can, or cannot, be paid by the plan. Do a search on the word "settlor".

How can this be?!

You could be correct. Perhaps this is a "glaring issue", and it should be sent back?

NC = 0 since you have EOY valdate. The participant's status at valdate is inactive, so no NC.