david rigby

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?

Just an thought: what is meant by "part-time"? For example, if EE works 10 hours a week, does the plan suspension language apply? If it does, could the plan be amended to be more generous for part-time rehires?

It may be a longshot, but ... if the provision was implemented with a fixed temporary timeframe, it may have automatically expired. (Sort of like an early retirement window.) However, such provision should have been non-discriminatory at the time it was created.

Yes, Doraville. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42132

You could. But a PFB is voluntary; any excess may be added to the PFB but there is no requirement to do so.

I was not being so blunt. Those are the most obvious of the options that can be used. If the EE is closing in on (or already passed) NRD, the easiest solution is to make sure the plan permits in-service distributions at NRD.

If it helps to have more than one vote, I agree with Andy. There may be other issues to consider with the merger, such as top-heavy or 415 or 410(b) or 401(a)(26) or 401(a)(4). Some may be trivial, but that does not mean they should be ignored. As always, it's best to ask such questions of the plan's actuary.

... but you can create a distributable event pretty easily.

Is any termination necessary? Merge?

A couple of useful books are: Pension Planning, by Allen, Melone, Rosenbloom, VanDerHei. (My 7th edition has those authors. Later editions may have different authors.) Fundamentals of Private Pension Plans, by McGill and Grubbs. (My 6th edition has those authors. Later editions may have different authors.)

OK, I'll bite. How does a plan violate this?

See IRC 411(a)(13). 3 years.