david rigby

Anyone have a link to the tables in IRS Notice 2008-85, in csv or xls format? P.S. I did not see anything here: http://xtbml.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp

I like the idea Andy. Can you see any possible 401(a)(4) issues? Any 416 issues?

This is the important fact: It would seem you offer (a) an annuity of 75, or (b) the EECWI (which by definition is a lump sum), plus an annuity of 65.

I think it is either $14,500 or $9,000, contained in Rev Proc. 2008-8. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb08-01.pdf Caution: fees may change on January 1, 2009.

Sieze the accounts? Methinks that is the wrong verb. The proposal is (essentially) to require that the government be the "trustee", which does not cancel existing accounts and is not the same as seizure. (It's still a bad idea.)

Better than "call" or "ask", how about "hire an actuary", especially one who is experienced in your concern.

Maybe. I've heard Ms. Teresa Ghilarducci give a radio interview on this subject. She is very serious, including such phrases as "share the wealth". However, I agree (hope) that she won't get any traction in Congress.

You may not have the problem expected. In my observation, an in-service distribution (assuming it's for the full amount of the accrued benefit) will most often mean that the participant does not accrue additional amounts. This is because most plans contain language that offsets the additional accrual by the amount of the distribution, and the net result is usually zero. When is this not the case? Probably if there has been a significant increase in the benefit via amendment or a significant compensation increase.

I think I agree with Effen, but remember that "benefitting" under 404(a)(7) is not the same as that term is used in most other contexts, such as 401(a)(4).

Amend the plan?

I second Andy's suggestion.

Just my opinion, IRS rule number one: thou shalt follow the terms of thy plan document. IRS rule number two: thou shalt not violate IRC 415.

Nope.

Have you reviewed the Blue Book(s) for help? For example, see Q&A 00-16 and 07-5.

Forgive the stupid question: is the plan still covered by the PBGC?

Oops. IRC 411(a)(2)B) applies to DC plans. Perhaps the 3-yr vesting was adopted in a DB plan because: - the DC plan was being amended and someone decided to amend the DB plan for "agreement"; or - someone did not understand the law; - the DB plan is a cash balance plan (special PPA-created vesting rule for these types of DB plans).

Not so fast. This plan is terminating. The non-responders cannot "hold hostage" the completion of the termination. If they do not respond, and you cannot purchase a deferred annuity, what's next?

I agree this is a very undesirable definition. However, in my observation, the intent (not necessarily application) of the term "month" has always been "calendar month". Then, the plan administrator must focus on when the compensation is earned vs. paid (I vote for the latter).

Not very wise, huh? The contribution (and deduction) still look like $10K to me.

There may be some other issues here. - First, Andy is absolutely correct to recommend the $5K automatic cashout limit. - Second, no matter how you try to buy an annuity covering all the plan provisions, this will be irrelevant if you can't find an insurance carrier to sell it to you. Generally, they don't like to sell deferred annuities. The alternative is to buy an immediate annuity. In that case, IMHO, the only choice is the plan's defined QJSA. As suggested by Kabert, when you send another letter, describe this process, and it may help get the participant to return the election form.

Data as of 31-OCT-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 6.54 6.54 Aa 7.22 6.93 7.08 A 8.01 8.13 8.07 Baa 9.28 9.80 9.54 Avg 8.17 7.85 8.01 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.70 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.60 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.71

You have to: - locate "lost" participants, - confirm presence/disposition of alternate payees (if any), - file DL request with IRS (maybe), - file with the PBGC (if covered), - liquidate the plan by paying benefits to participants and/or alternate payees.

... assuming the old plan and the new plan (or rather, the sponsors) have something to do with each other.

Duplicate posting: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=40220&hl=