david rigby

Choice is permitted only if 500 or fewer participants. See: - 1.430(h)(3)-1(b), in federal register 5/29/07, and - Notice 2008-85, in IRB 10/20/08. However, it states "sponsor" is permitted to choose, which does not sound like an actuarial assumption. Perhaps, it is part of the method. But there may be something I've missed.

Data as of 31-MAR-09 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.39 5.39 Aa 6.14 6.04 6.09 A 6.41 6.87 6.64 Baa 8.04 8.85 8.45 Avg 6.86 6.79 6.83 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.91 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.08 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.37

Possibly relevant? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29101

Comments from SoCal and Effen are "spot on". A "small plan software" package may be perfectly reasonable for this plan. Other issues that could arise may include: other plans within a controlled group, non-qualified plan(s), minimum coverage, time spent responding to auditor, completion of 5500, different benefit for different groups/divisions, etc. One issue that will likely be irrelevant: top-heavy.

Yes.

I agree with AtA, but add the caution, "did you file the Form 501?"

Is an answer available from Q&A T30-T31 in the 416 reg?

I believe you are searching for the term "safe harbor".

The amendment should probably be dated currently, but it can pick up retroactive service. Don't forget to "catch-up" on any benefits paid in the meantime. BTW, a verbal agreement is not the ideal documentation. Have the plan's ERISA counsel draft a written agreement at the same time he/she is drafting the amendment?

Any plan provision that might permit a participant to "cancel" a distribution after the fact? Likely not; many plans are more specific, stating that a participant can change his/her election until the distribution has been made. If no plan provision that permits this, then it looks like a distribution, and the 1099 should not be amended.

Try searching these Message Boards for "settlor". Same advice for DOL website.

"official penalty"? Who knows? But, IRC 3405© requires the withholding. 3405(d) says "the payor ... shall withhold, and be liable for, payment of the tax required to be withheld..."

Freeze it now, and ask your ERISA attorney to opine on the question? At least it won't get any worse while you wait for an answer.

For 412 purposes, we are beyond the 2-1/2 month time period for recognizing amendments, anyway (assuming a calendar year plan).

What does the plan say about allocation of excess assets? If it gives the excess to participants, this entire action may violate the plan itself. IHMO, you've followed the Code of Professional Conduct. May need to review some ASOPs for a more complete answer. BTW, under Precept 9, I don't think you can "advise" the plan sponor's auditor and/or attorney of this situation. Cash the check. Except for the 2 year delay to get the asset reversion, this could be viewed as "no harm, no foul" (assuming excess assets to the ER under the plan).

BTW, this definition does not mean the plan will automatically pass the ADP test.

IRC 411(d)(3)

It helps much! With that change, my result: DAF(Nov) = 29.083 DAF(Dec) = 43.82

Using homemade spreadsheet, I get different DAF values than Andy, but similar relationship.

The celebration will be even larger in 2015.

Congress and "brilliant" in the same discussion! Very funny.

Is this person an employee and a vendor? W-2 is for ER/EE relationship. Review instructions for W-2 and/or 1099?

Assuming your refer to a DC plan (since you use the word "discretionary"), the 2008 limit under IRC 415© is/was $46,000. So, $62K each is a problem. But, if this is a DB plan, then the answer changes.

Don't mean to be disrespectful, just trying to help us smile thru the pain: 1. "Don't worry your job is secure!" or "Your job is safe." 2. "By the way, is your laptop in your office?" 3. "We're giving you a one-time opportunity to expand your resume." 4. "Wouldn't it be great to spend more time with your family?" 5. "Where do you see your career going with us in the next year?" 6. "We're not laying you off; we're just not rehiring you." 7. "Are you going to be here this Friday? Say...around 3 p.m.?" 8. "So how's your wife's job going?" 9. "We are re-sizing our global footprint." 10. "Could you close the door, please?"

It may be possible to recognize this person as "disabled" and use a disabled mortality table for such status, but I doubt it would be reasonable to assume a qx of .9 (for example) for this one person. Just one guy's opinion.