david rigby

Why terminate? Why not freeze it, and start whatever other plan is desired (PS, k, ESOP, etc)?

Data as of 29-AUG-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.60 5.60 Aa 6.03 5.92 5.98 A 6.32 6.52 6.42 Baa 6.94 7.29 7.12 Avg 6.43 6.33 6.38 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.62 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.41 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.32

I assume you are referring to the 2007 PY valuation. Can you change the funding method and accomplish your goal?

Hmmm, you have a point. My point applies when a defective Q&A is discovered before grading is complete. Nevertheless, it may be hasty to assume the only course of action will be to give you a point (assuming you win your argument).

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't know what this means. How can you contribute to her 401(k) account? Is she the employer? Were you an employee of the same company (in which case you should have your own account)?

Included in the original question is Let's remember that is not a necessary result of the plan freeze, but is conditional. See IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-2(b)(2).

Although I don't have immediate access to Code or Reg for confirmation, my first guess would to answer True. BTW, if the JBEA decides that the question is invalid (for any reason), I think the protocol will not give you the point. Instead, they will throw out the question, for everyone.

That could be one alternative, but it places a burden on the payee to (help) solve a problem it did not cause.

"...may provide..." is correct. That is, the plan sponsor has the option of whether or not to include such compensation.

... but you still have to look at the plan document to make sure it does not say otherwise.

If you do this, don't forget to consider whether any portion of such fees are settlor expenses, to make sure they are not paid by the plan.

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?