david rigby

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=

Responses are correct. It may help the questioner to note, no matter who has "input" into determing the rates, if anything is challenged by the SEC, it must be the plan sponsor (ie, the owner of the financial statements) who answers those questions.

Don't forget that the test for exemption from shortfall amortization is based on AVA minus prefunding balance (not carryover balance).

Hey, how about our intrepid webmaster! (He's not near Milwaukee, but what the heck.)

Depends on who owns the contract. If the plan, then it is just a plan investment, and the plan still has liability to the participant. If this is an irrevocable commitment, such that the assets and liabilities are no longer in the plan, how could the plan have any responsibility?

I suggest your own research to confirm, but here is my best recollection: 1. No. The max is greater of amount under IRC 430 or greater of: (a) FT plus NC plus cushion amount, minus AVA, or (b) if not subject to at-risk, then FT plus NC (both determined using at-risk assumps) minus AVA. (For a non-frozen plan that is compensation-based, I'm not sure if (b) could be greater than (a), but I have not tested that.) 2. For cushion amount, assume both the comp and benefit limits apply, except that a PBGC covered plan may ignore the comp limit. 3. I don't see any interest adjustment in the contribution, for 430 or 404. It appears that all amounts (FT, NC, AVA, cushion, etc.) are calculated at the valuation date. But I could be missing something.

I've gone down this road before. Lori's answer is correct. IMHO, using rounded numbers on one schedule of the 5500 and unrounded on another schedule is undesirable.