david rigby

BTW, don't forget that a plan that goes in and out of Top Heavy status is considered to have a change of vesting schedule (assuming the plan defines two different vesting schedules for this purpose).

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=108362,00.html

No expert I, but that coverage is limited, as stated in the linked item: In my limited understanding, it appears that some (not necessarily all) of these "securities" are exempt from SEC oversight/regulation. However, they resemble insurance products, but no one (insurance regulators, auditors, etc) required any reserving.

Perhaps I misunderstand the facts. It seems to me that, if you are purchasing an annuity, then you no longer care about EE and/or spouse signoff (although perhaps the insurance company cares); the only course of action is to purchase a QJSA. Perhaps you could give the EE a choice of other J&S options in the plan, but I'm not sure that is necessary. The other possible action is to "threaten" to do this, as a trigger to get the EE/spouse to signoff on the lump sum. BTW, I assume the plan is purchasing the annuity for $x per month, no matter what it costs, rather than taking the $35K and purchasing whatever annuity it will buy.

Isn't that a description of "credit default swaps"? Unregulated, unaudited and unsecured. Somebody was asleep at the wheel.

The IRS considers a COLA to be part of the accrued benefit. For example, see GrayBook Q&A 2006-32 and 96-39. BTW, so does the PBGC. See BlueBook Q&A 98-2. Also, see recent court case: Gary Williams v. Rohm and Haas Pension Plan Seventh Circuit, decided 8/14/2007 Case. No. 06-2555

Hmmmm. I wonder if this sponsor will be looking for another auditor.

Sloppy? Malpractice? You decide. BTW, has anyone discussed this with the actuary to see if the "excess" really is an excess? The PA should probably get its ERISA attorney to review this, then take the attorney's advice. Just a thought.

Several prior discussion threads on this topic. Recommended reading. Try the Search feature with "illegal alien".

Does the plan language require/permit a contribution only to the extent it is deductible? BTW, don't forget IRC 4972

Doesn't the fourth month begin September 30, 2008?

Even if only one plan, you may be able to split it into two plans ("spinoff) and then terminate "plan A". I doubt that would be advisable, but it may be possible.

Got an employer that sponsors a 401(k) plan? If so, use it.

I vote for today. "spirit of the law".

Close. Beginning in 1840, every president elected or re-elected in a year evenly divisible by 20 died in office: Wm Harrison(1840), Lincoln(1860), Garfield(1880), McKinley(1900), Harding(1920), F. Roosevelt(1940), Kennedy(1960). This pattern was broken by Reagan(1980). But, this "rule" fails to include Zachary Taylor, elected in 1848, died 1850.

Perhaps I overlooked it, but did anyone state what type of plan? DB or DC? One of the attractive aspects of a DB plan is its ability to cover service retroactively, so having a delayed entry date for everyone makes the above discussion irrelevant. Therefore, my recommendation is twofold: adopt a DB plan; hire an actuary.

http://oracleofbacon.org/

All of these comments fail to take into account the office. That is, does holding the office of President increase your chances of dying, for any reason? Does a president "age" faster than the general population?

1. balanced federal budget 2. balanced federal budget 3. balanced federal budget 4. balanced federal budget 5. balanced federal budget

If memory serves (and occasionally it does), the reg refers to legally separated and a court order. Those could be the same thing, but not so in all states. For example, NC does require a husband/wife to live apart for at least 12 months before divorce. There is no requirement for court order, or any written documentation, to initiate this "living apart". This is exactly why the Reg. includes the requirement of a court order: to provide the written documentation, in addition to meeting the state's definition (formal or otherwise) of "legally separated".

Can you use the plan's definition of beneficiary to identify the appropriate party/estate?

The rule(s) applicable to change in vesting schedule are not part of the "anti-cutback" rule(s), but they are related, in a general sense. Anti-cutback: IRC 411(d)(6) Change in vesting schedule: IRC 411(a)(10). If the plan is amended to change the vesting schedule, any participant who has at least 3 years of (vesting) service must be permitted to elect which vesting schedule to be covered under. In practice, I've never seen the election; rather, the amendment provides the "greater of" for any affected participant with 3 or more years of service.

Yes, such exception does exist in the regs (along with something about "abandonment"). IMHO, the exception is irrelevant unless the plan provisions include it.

To protect your interest, you probably need an attorney, especially one who is familiar with "qualified domestic relations orders". This may provide some useful background information: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/Publications/qdros.html

... or from the retroactive DB service?