david rigby

Is this W-2 pay?

Would the addition of a PS plan help any?

You can find the IRS list of "standard mortality tables" in Regulation 1.401(a)(4)-12. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...26/26tab_02.tpl The IRS has updated it from time to time; perhaps someone else can find a link to updates.

Would a DL have any bearing on this issue? At any rate, getting a DL is (almost always) a good idea.

From what I recall, a due date for any IRS filing that falls on a weekend or holiday is automatically extended, but any other due dates are not.

Yes. I read it as revising the definition of minimum. Which section is your focus?

I doubt the size of the excess is relevant. In the cases I've seen, the (relatively) small excess is what made it easy for the sponsor to decide to amend the plan. For a one-participant plan (assuming the participant is also the owner), what reason would there be (other than 415) to give the excess to the participant, rather than the sponsor? Participant gets it eligible for rollover, but sponsor pays (at least) excise tax on it. For the year of termination, if the sponsor has cash available for a contribution, then careful management of the freeze date and termination date should make it a simple contribution.

I see terminations of employment, but not termination of the plan. Which is it?

I doubt there is any prohibition, although there are some i's to dot and t's to cross. I've seen several plan terminations where the sponsor wanted to allocate excess to participants, primarily because the excess was not large. In this case, the plan was amended, after the freeze date but before actual distributions, to change the default from "sponsor" to "participants".

Interesting overview on NPR/All Things Considered from 12/31/08 (recording about 5 minutes). http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaP...&m=98913251 No doubt, you can find some more recent items.

Ditto. BTW, a generic page for contact information: http://www.pbgc.gov/about/contact.html

Well, you are consistent Ned.

Is this a different question?

Reasonable questions. Why not ask the vendor? Better yet, ask multiple vendors.

Is the participant looking for a waiver. It might be available. See page 24 of IRS Publication 590

It could be defined in the plan document, but probably not, in which case the PA should look to employment definitions in personnel policies. If a collective bargaining agreement is relevant, look there first.

On Jan. 2, I called Moody's and asked these questions. The response was "there will not be a 12/31 posting". As for "why", the response provided no detail; my own opinion is that Moody's decided to ignore 12/31 because the trading volume was low, or the trading day was short, or both.

Well, sometimes, they are the cause of the illogic. (Of course, in this regard, no one measures up to Congress.)

It's possible (maybe likely) that I misunderstand your question. 1. Note the phrase "without regard to subclause (II)". Is this part of your original question? 2. I think the proper reference for the mortality table is IRS Notice 2008-85, issued 9/30/08, published in Federal Register 10/20/08. But check for yourself to make sure this applies to your question.

See section 122 of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008: BTW, the reference to IRC 408 does not apply to all plans:

Data as of 30-DEC-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.64 4.64 Aa 5.54 5.32 5.43 A 6.13 6.32 6.23 Baa 7.66 8.28 7.97 Avg 6.44 6.14 6.29 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.72 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.85 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.78 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's has not posted any data for 12/31/08. (Perhaps because the trading day was short?) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just in case, here are the rates for December 29, 2008: Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.74 4.74 Aa 5.59 5.37 5.48 A 6.19 6.44 6.32 Baa 7.74 8.36 8.05 Avg 6.51 6.23 6.37 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.75 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.84 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.81

Shouldn't the 12/31/08 AVA (for IRC 430 purposes) = actual assets minus contributions already made for the PY = 0?

Not surprising. There is an increasing tendency for Congress to punt the details to the bureaucracy.

If you know which Federal Register you want, this link will get you there fast. http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/t...er/indexes.html Sometimes the best way to find original source is by searching BenefitsLink.

Hmmm. Perhaps I'm just an idiot. How can the employee have a deferral if there is no compensation? Was there an actual deduction from a paycheck? Did the plan accept a contribution that was not deducted from a paycheck? Is it possible that the plan did everything correct, but the 2006 payroll may have been "jimmyed"? (In case you were wondering, "jimmyed" is the technical term.)