david rigby

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?

I agree with your solution to have the plan purchase an immediate J&S. (Unlikely an insurance company would want to sell a deferred annuity.) The process of completing the plan termination should not be held hostage to one participant/spouse inability or unwillingness to respond. I did this several years ago in a similar situation. BTW, it should be whatever the plan defines as the QJSA, no options. But send a letter to the EE advising of this action, giving 30 days additional response time.

You can Search the BenefitsLink Message Boards, also.

As George implies, a good first step would be to clarify "who is the employer?" They may not really be self-employed.

I agree wih Andy. When he states "protect the payment options", it would be prudent to consider the option factors in A versus those in B.

What does the plan say?

Depending on the size of your "non-frozen" group, (a)(26) may fail a year after the change (technically, at the end of the plan year following the plan year that contains the effective date of the change).

Aren't we all subject to audit all the time?Or does this client have something more definitive?

Well, maybe. But I assumed this is a new plan, so my comment had nothing to do with an amendment (at least, not in the formal sense). However, if -5 is relevant, who is harmed?

You may wish to review the 415 reg (issued March/April 2007):http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...pdf/E7-5750.pdf Begin about page 40, and pay particular attention to the discussion about compensation after severance of employment.

Can you define initial eligibiltiy as "employed on the effective date of the plan", and subsequent eligibility using dual entry dates and 21&1?

I don't care about the machinations, but it concerns me that you kept something that you knew you were not entitled to. Does this bother anyone else?

You, and the plan, don't care "how Medicaid works". The plan is responsible for paying benefits each month under the terms of the written document, not for determining how the recipient is spending the money. The person from the nursing home was describing a reimbursement and accounting procedure, not a Medicaid procedure.

More generically, http://www.irs.gov/businesses/internationa...d=96739,00.html

Sieve's comments seem right on to me; the legal expense appears to be a settlor expense. Minor Q: w/r/t putting "the plan back in the same place", would it matter if the plan states that forfeitures are used to reduce ER contributions? Technically, not permitted? Practically, no harm?