david rigby

Page 64 of IRS publication 590. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf

No time to look up the details, but I recall (I think) an IRS statement that an automatic/indexed change in AE is subject to 411(d)(6).

Just first thought, it seems prudent to follow the other general practices that the govt entity is using to account for its short FY. Any help there? I'm willing to be educated about other approaches or standards.

Could be. Depends on your plan amendment. But (likely) the plan amendment is not done, so it depends on what the sponsor wants to do. On a non-discrminatory basis of course.

Good cite. However, if the plan is never subject to the applicable section of PPA06, then the statute (and the corresponding IRS guidance) does not apply.

Sounds like an actuarial assumption to me. What do you think?

I never noticed that before. ERISA sec. 4002(g)(2). Perhaps the stakeholders (plan psonsors) should rise up and demand their right to have a say in the management of this "corporation."

The effective date of PPA06 sec. 1104 is "plan years beginning after December 31, 2007." If the plan terminated before a 2008 plan year, then this provision does not apply. Just my opinion; do you think otherwise?

I'm not sure what you mean? As Andy points out, it appears the maximum assumed earnings rate (for purposes of smoothing) is the third segment of the funding rates (Sec. 121(a) of WRERA).

My favorite rant: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...st&p=104851

I agree w/ Andy. 23K to 70K does not seem sensible.

Sieve's explanation seems right on point. (However, I'm concerned that he posted at 1:43 am.)

Does the plan have the (common) language for automatic payouts when less than $5K?

REA was passed 08/23/1984. QDRO did not exist prior to that.

I have never seen such a chart. For details of withholding rates or tables, you may have to research the Dept of Revenue for the particular state. (Remember there are a few states, such as TX and FL, that have no income tax.)

No lawyer I, but it appears that your description of the Distribution Election is not permitted by the plan, since it is not the estate. More specifically, it names a beneficiary that appears to contradict your other facts.

Not at all. It is a ringing endorsement of this website. I use it often as a way to narrow down a search for information; for example, searching for an approximate date when so-and-so happened.

BenefitsLink.com

That may be appropriate, Sieve. On his personal profile, Fredman lists his job as "Bounty Hunter" and his interest as "Hunting Jedi".

You can also see some sample (end of month) Moody's rates here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...27329&st=45

Be careful here. This link shows two items issued by Citi: • The Citigroup Pension Discount Liability Index is a weighted average developed by Citigroup, using its own “Citigroup Pension Discount Curve”. The single value shown at 12/31/08 is 5.87%. • Citigroup develops this single value based on cash flow matching of a “typical” pension plan. Unfortunately, we do not have the details about what they consider to be a “typical” plan (or ir we do, I can't find it). Before using this single value, it is prudent to consider the cash flow matching and demographics of the plan.

No guarantee that these are accurate: http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/co...ng_statetax.pdf http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/St...Withholding.pdf

Doesn't this depend (a lot) on the exact terms of the DOL order? Is the plan part of the order? In the original post, the back pay was for 2006 and 2007, but paid to EEs in 2008. When is that part of the EE's W-2? If it's 2008 W-2, can the plan modify anything for a prior year?

Isn't a partial termination always evaluated on a plan basis?

Oh no! French! Ugh.