david rigby

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.)

Data as of 31-JUL-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.73 5.73 Aa 6.16 6.02 6.09 A 6.44 6.61 6.53 Baa 7.03 7.38 7.21 Avg 6.54 6.44 6.49 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.86 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.61 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.51

Are saying that the IRS did propose a 10% excise tax? If so, perhaps the IRS agent is misinterpreting sec. 4972. The answer from Sieve looks pretty good.

Do 1994 plan provision change, in a relevant manner, the death benefit provisions in effect at time of the 1992 waiver? If not, the waiver should be usable. (Yes, I understand 411d6 may not be relevant here.)

Fascinating. Just my opinion, but I would make a "note to file" with the documentation you mentioned, and drop this person immediately, without any survivor benefits.

A DB plan has a limit on the amount of annual benefit that can be paid out. A DC plan has a limit on the amount of annual contribution that can be paid in. Neither limit has a direct impact on the other, but there are some instances when the provisions of one plan can impact the other plan under IRC 401(a)(4). IRC 404(a)(7) contains a limit on the amount of permissble deduction when both plan types cover overlapping groups of employees.

Who is Manny Ramirez?

If you have indication that the request is "termination liability", then make a reasonable determination of that (not sure who is paying for this extra work). But, as Mike implies, this may have nothing to do with termination liability. From the description given, it certainly is not clear why this information is relevant to the FDIC.

Duplicate postings are awkward: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=39303

I'm not familiar with this concept.

As stated, it depends. Here is another example. Annuity payment form; retiree elects LA with 10-yr certain, then retiree dies within 10 years. Somebody gets the remaining payments, according to the beneficiary election (or plan default if needed). That somebody can (and should) name a beneficiary in case she/he dies before all remaining payments are made.

http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2007-43.pdf This Revenue Ruling concerns a DC plan. However, the text uses language that suggests that a percentage test is viewed based on active participants, such as "severance from employment" or "turnover rate". IMHO, this is the common sense approach. As always, and as mentioned in the RR, any partial termination is evaluated in light of the particular facts and circumstances.

Amusing. Since this is BenefitsLink, you could use this: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb00-42.pdf

Is there is a potential problem in how those expenses are allocated? For example, suppose some participants receive a 75% distribution and others receive zero (due to a variety of administrative reasons), then the "final" expenses are determined. - What is the base for allocating those expenses? - Does the length of the intervening time period matter? - Does the type of expense matter? Anyone have experience with that?

http://www.abanet.org/jceb/2004/qa04irs.pdf Question 19.