david rigby

PPA text here: http://www.aspa.org/government/gacpdf/HWC_373_xml.pdf See modifed IRC 412, beginning on page 108. Subsection (d)(1) is at page 120.

Could something else be going on: a US based EA, subcontracting the "number crunching"?

I think the 945 is the annual filing, but there is another form (8109?) that is filed when the $ is transmitted to the IRS. The transmittal requirements are (probably) similar to those for other withholding, so it will be deposited into an IRS account within a few days after the payment date, even if the annual filing is not for several months. Check the IRS forms site.

Probably, the trustee will make the payments: check for $8K to EE and $2K to IRS. If Schwab is the trustee, they will cut the checks. If not, they will transmit the funds to the trustee. Then, the EE will get a 1099R (from the trustee) showing a distribution of $10K with withholding of $2K. The EE may have a 10% excise tax, determined and paid with the 1040 filing. Or maybe not. This is not the responsibility of the trustee or plan administrator or TPA. Don't forget the Special Tax Notice. Perhaps the ER should refer the EE to IRS publications 575 and 590. But, of course, I'm not in the business of giving legal or tax advice.

Correct. See PPA section 904. Special rule for certain ESOPs.

I agree with Effen. Almost certainly, the "residual" benefit at age 70 (your example) is zero, assuming the age 65 distribution is a lump sum. The only reasonable exception is a significant plan improvement (via amendment) between ages 65 and 70. But that is not exactly what you asked. My document preference would be to have the plan use "actuarial equivalent" phrasing, but make sure that refers to a particular definition.

Yes.Plan amendment that creates the "partial freeze" must be adopted before its effective date (but you knew that). Also, see IRS Reg 1.401(a)(26). There could be coverage and/or 401(a)(4) issues, including the question of whether the grandfathered EEs will also be covered by the new (k) plan. I've probably forgotten something.

I think you're on the right track. BTW, the DB 415 limit looks like $195K, and the comp limit looks like $245K.

There are lots of different types of liability insurance, so the answer to your question is "maybe". You should probably approach a competent insurance advisor, who is familiar with umbrella coverage, to get an answer for your particular situation.

Answers above by jevd seem to be predicated on the assumption that the original post was concerned with a QDRO for an IRA. I read the OP differently, but who knows. Perhaps the poster could elaborate. Or just ignore the whole thing?

Might be appropriate to review the CBA first, then the plan document.

I agree with JSimmons. If I were reviewing that DRO, my recommendation to the PA would be to reject it. The gaol can be accomplished by having the parties do the arithmetic, and put the result in the DRO.

Normally, AD&D is not expensive. Could it be significant here? What is the premium w/o that rider?

Reversion excise taxes are not the first problem. 404 is the first concern, along with 401(a)(4). I also doubt that $170K is correct. Perhaps there are facts not yet in evidence. For example, could the $170K be the principal's "allocation" of the total contribution, including other non-principals?

Not really. It amended 87, 88, 106, and 132. In the link mentioned above, you will see this statement:

SFAS158 (and SFAS 87/88/132 and 106) are related to the financial statements (and the audit thereof) of the plan sponsor, not of the plan itself.

Perhaps you've taken care of this in your shorthand phrasing, but don't forget the 3-year look back under category 3.

IRS Reg. 1.415©-2(e). You can read about that beginning on page 41 of this document: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...pdf/E7-5750.pdf Note the phrase "...the plan may provide..."

As usual, Tom offers good comments. Another scenario to consider: after acquisition, will some A employees "transfer" elsewhere within B, which (at least on its surface) could alter the benefits package applicable to that person? These coverage issues should be addressed prior to closing the sale.

There is no free lunch. It might have a cost. But probably not much.

Well...., it can be destroyed, by conversion to energy. (see, Einstein) Otherwise, good answer.

You can start here for tax treaties: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/intern...d=96454,00.html

While doing your research, perhaps the presumption should be eliminated.

As suggested above, review of all material (especially written) is essential to determine what was promised and/or said. However, sometimes the word "vested" is thrown around a bit casually. During review of documents, verify whether the promise (or perhaps, the intent) was "to vest" or "to apply prior service for vesting".

This is the key. It is reasonable to ask this question, but be prepared to get a simple "yes". Alternatively, the company may not have bothered to investigate the alternatives. In that case, the practioners on this messge board will be glad to offer some suggestions, or direct your wife's employer to a competent advisor. (Sad to say, there are some "less than competent" advisors.)