david rigby

Isn't there a general principle that a plan does not exist until the later of its effective date or adoption date?

ERISA does not specify any such proof (age, marriage, death, etc.). However, the Plan Administrator may wish to establish some reasonable internal procedures for defining valid documentation.

Duplicate question. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38939

Increase in PVAB does not reflect asset performance, so it will not be a true reflection of "cost". The IA-NC may (or may not) be a good solution, especially depending on how the IA method reflects gains/losses. But you also have to be careful how you reflect other items; for example, plan changes or the liability for existing inactive participants, etc. And be careful of the assumptions used to develop the IA amounts. (BTW, this applies whether or not IA is the funding method.) Have I left anything out?

Note the "shall" in IRC 402(e): Perhaps the alternative payee should investigate whether such income would be counted in determining financial aid. If this is a lump sum distribution, the AP may also wish to investigate whether to receive it in the form of direct IRA rollover.

I disagree with that conclusion. The proposed amendment does not harm any participants; does not harm any employees. Why does that "smell bad"? Rather than a slap, it looks like a pat on the back for those who get the vesting.

If the amendment is effective 06/30/08, should the 07/01/08 new participant be part of the decision process?

Replies here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38913

Any chance that these HCE's are still within 60 days of distribution?

How about this site? IMHO, BenefitsLink.com is a first-resource. Search the entire site, or just the Message Boards, for articles or information on your specific item(s).

... Third, consider having the plan make a distribution (a "closeout") in the form of a direct rollover to an IRA. See IRS Publication 575: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf

Start reading on page 8 of this IRS publication: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf BTW, you can order your own copy by calling 1-800-TAXFORM

Are you sure the lump sum does not already have an interest adjustment included?

What did the insurance company say when you asked them these questions?

Data as of 30-MAY-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.67 5.67 Aa 6.18 6.07 6.13 A 6.36 6.46 6.41 Baa 6.93 7.18 7.06 Avg 6.49 6.35 6.42 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 3.04 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.76 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.59

Speaking of "down this road before": http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=36434 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28518 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26763 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19745 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=11880

I disagree, if "within a year" means 12 months. If this means "during the plan year of termination", then the statement is better (maybe not perfect, but better).

Is that a question, or a statement?

... but you cannot exclude NHCEs based on criteria that would fail other tests, such as "exclude all males".

Is that (or any) PBGC rule relevant for the plan described in original post?

A stamp is an inexpensive investment. Write the letter.

Is a DL is the key to getting/documenting a valid rollover? If so, then going thru this "hassle" might be worthwhile? If not, then it may be overkill. Since I'm not a lawyer, my default recommendation is to do the DL.

I assume you are discussing a DB plan. But no matter. If you have any doubt, just report all the VTs. Also, report any lump sum payments (using "D") even if you think they may have been reported before.

Are you under the impression that the making of law, and/or the law itself, is logical?

Perhaps I misunderstand the question. Is masteff's response implying that the proposed change affects only some people who are not yet participnats, and (therefore) cannot be construed as a "cutback"? If so, that may not be the relevant test. Relevant is what impact applies to those who are already participants. Could the change reduce the proportion of the PS allocation received by current participants? and does it matter if they have not yet earned any right to the 2008 PS?