david rigby

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.

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.