david rigby

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.

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.