david rigby

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?

IRC 411(e): Perhaps my interpretation is flawed, but I interpret 411(e) as saying a govt. plan is exempt from all of IRC 411, if it complies with 401(a)(4) and 401(a)(7) as in effect immediately prior to ERISA. Neither of those pre-ERISA sections contain anything like the language in current 411(d)(6).

To the best of my recollection, govt. plans are specifically exempt from all of IRC section 411. But I'll have to reread it tomorrow morning back at the office. State laws would likely apply in the case of the WV plan.

Huh?

IRM is here: http://www.irs.gov/irm/index.html No luck with the TAM. (BNA goes back to only 1999.)

Not an answer to your question, but have you considered, and does the plan permit, settling all plan obligations via group annuity purchase? I'm not saying it is cheaper than 417e lump sums, just that there is no harm in checking.

The relationship of the original poster to the plan/sponsor is unclear. If not legal counsel, I suggest two things: - read interesting comments above, and - get thee (plan administrator) to a competent ERISA counsel.

Sounds like an opportunity to improve the plan's definition of "termination". Decide/negotiate what is desired, and put it in the document.

It may also be nice to see improved grammar and/or punctuation. But most plans struggle with that.

Data as of 30-APR-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.51 5.51 Aa 5.92 5.84 5.88 A 6.22 6.27 6.25 Baa 6.74 7.00 6.87 Avg 6.29 6.16 6.23 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.60 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.41 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.36

Why would anyone take direction w/r/t plan design from the broker?

As Grumpy notes (in a backhand sort of way), NC did not exempt "ERISA work" from any UPL claim. Rather, the NC Bar noted that certain qualifications entitle individuals to "practice" before the IRS (and DOL and PBGC) on ERISA-related matters. If you are a TPA without a CPA, EA, attorney, or Enrolled Agent, then you don't get any exemption in NC; in addition, having such qualified individuals will not automatically provide any exemption, unless the work is supervised or reviewed by such qualified individual.

Minor enhancement to Effen's advice: Generally, plans will define NRA as the time at which 100% vesting occurs (as is done in IRC 411), while NRD is the date on which this benefit commences. Although not advisable, some plans have NRA = age 65, and NRD = later of age 65 and fifth anniversary of participation. Thus, this EE could be 100% vested, but still have to wait for commencement date. But, as stated, check the plan definitions.

I would go with (2). The existence of the plan is more than the question of assets. Very likely, participants earned some vesting service during the plan year.

No doubt you are aware that an amicus brief is not necessarily the final word; just cause ASPA said it, does not make it so. The NC State Bar website has a page on "Preventing the Unauthorized Practice of Law". Excerpt from Q&A: