david rigby

Careful reading of the original post will indicate that two (opposite) questions are asked. To which question are you answering "no"?

I misread reread the Q; my previous answer is not correct. I agree with SoCal.

Ignore the vesting. FT => 100. NC => 20.

There might be some apples and oranges in this discussion. Andy is correct to state that vesting is (generally) not relevant to the FTAP. This statement refers to the vesting status of active participant. Once an employee incurs a separation of employment, thus becoming an inactive participant, that person's vesting status is fixed, and only the vested portion of the benefit is relevant.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/Publications/qdros.html See (for example) Q&As 2-10 to 2-12 and cross references in the footnotes.

Is such a lump sum permitted under the qualified plan? If this is a payment under a QP, we don't care what the insurer wants to do, only what the plan permits.

Approximate for what purpose? Possible that the Mortality and Morbidity Report from the CDC has information on incidence of the disease, and maybe on the number of deaths. However, it is extremely unlikely that the number of deaths will be more than a statistical "blip" (not a technical term) in the total. Also, while not necessarily intended, your statement implied that the disease can affect mortality over a period of time (not just acutely); in such cases, death may be related to the disease, but the passage of time may diminish the likelihood that the disease makes it to the death certificate as a cause of death: if not on the death certificate, then no one can measure its impact.

Permitted. See IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-(4), Q&A2(b)(2)(x).

Just my opinion, but I think there is an obligation, although this is not necessarily the same as "legal requirement": since the plan is required to notify of an event that imposes a temporary restriction, the plan is also obligated to notify when the temporary event has expired. The participant has no other way to obtain this information. Example, suppose the restriction on accelerated distributions applies. Mary Doe, who hoped to retire and get a lump sum under the plan, decides not to retire, and waits for the restriction to expire. If the plan does not notify her of the expiration, when will she ever get that information? (Perhaps a later annual funding notice, but it's not spelled out there anyway.)

Not necessarily universal: most "extended deadlines" apply to the filing of a form (1040, 5500, PBGC1, etc.). Such extension may apply for other purposes, but it may be prudent to utilize the extension only when there is guidance that authorizes it.

The footnote says 05/2005. No guarantee that it was accurate, then or now.Another source of information may be the website for NY dept. of revenue.

Does this help? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=41016

There is nothing "magic" about the $200 threshold. It is merely the point on the IRS table at which tax withholding begins.

Think "affected participants", and "facts and circumstances". IMHO, the facts you presented are not enough to determine the answer to your question.

What is the response of the "consultant" when you asked him/her the same question?

Mostly, just more to think about: - Any concern that the plan (via either plan provsions or administrative procedures) should not inherently burden, or advantage, different participants merely because they have different access to submitting a change of investment election? - That is, should the white collar EE in the home office get an ability to submit speedier elections than the blue collar worker who works in Division X in factory Z? (By way of example, assume they both heard the same radio announcement at lunch time that caused them to consider submitting a change election.)

Would the nature of the workforce be relevant to this question?

Is anyone discussing the possible merger of plan D into plan E? Not an exhaustive list: Possible advantage: more efficient plan administration. Possible disadvantage: would a plan merger push the participant count over the threshold for audit?

Do you think the phrase "...(in writing or otherwise)..." in 2550.404c-1(b)(2)(i)(A) requires that a written option be available? (I'm not advocating either way, just tossing it out.) Sorry, I don't have the reg. preamble to see if that helps.

Certainly, the attorneys in this discussion thread will have more insight than I, but it seems the PA should look to the plan's terms, and possibly administrative interpretations that provide precedent, to determine the proper beneficiary. Is there a reason that a court order would precede the PA's determination?

This link is on the EBSA website. Cornell Law School. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/ch18.html Don't assume it is up-to-date.

Here is the Gray Book Q&A mentioned by AndyH (not exactly on point to the orginal question, but it may be useful): Gray Book 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.

Be careful about assuming an 18-year-old is a minor.

The other critical issue is whether 55 is an assumption chosen based on when actual retirement is anticipated, or is it chosen for some other reason?

I'm confused (OK, that's not difficult). I get the segment rates or the yield curve from here: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=123231,00.html Where did you get those rates?