david rigby

Seems appropriate to ask the (extremely) common question: What does the plan say? 1. "Union doesn't want the money in Plan CB...." So what? The governing documents (plan and CBA) should state whether any distribution is permitted or required. 2. "... and transfers his or her pre-tax contributions to Plan M." Again, is this permitted by the plain terms of both documents? If permitted, is it required? Who gets to decide? Finally, don't forget that sometimes state or local statute may be relevant, even if not incorporated into the terms of the plan document.

Difficult to tell without more details. For example, it might be relevant how far back, magnitude of the "mistake", etc. There might be some debate (between you and the prior actuary) whether it was really a mistake. Amending a B might have a bearing on the 412 minimum contribution and/or the actual 404 deduction, or on intervening 5500's, with possbile corollary impact(s) on other issues. Therefore, analysis should not be done in a vacuum. Also, be aware that changing assumptions is generally not permitted once the B has been filed.

Well..... some of us are glad to help clients understand the nuances of plan design and administration. If you decide to resign (you can't fire a client), please let me know so I can offer to help the plan sponsor.

I agree with Effen. However, the orginal post used the words "terminated" and "merged". That is technically possible, but unlikely. Before communicating further (with anyone), it may be prudent to identify the correct sequence of events. BTW, this is not necessarily correct with respect to DB plan terminations, depending on plan provisions:

The original post is unclear. First paragraph implies earnings allocations twice a year. Fourth paragraph implies daily valuation. As advised above, make sure the correct answer is clear in any communication.

Another site: http://www.benefitscounsel.com/archives/001783.html The first item on this site is the text of the statute. IMHO, it is easier to read than the version provided in both the IRS and EBSA references.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/retirement/arti...=165131,00.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pensionreform.html

Data as of 31-MAR-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.48 5.48 Aa 5.94 5.76 5.85 A 6.20 6.23 6.22 Baa 6.74 7.06 6.90 Avg 6.29 6.13 6.21 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.99 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.97 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.13

Some prior discussion about the concept of "un-terminating" a plan. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8785

... and is contrasted to the language used by actuaries: mumbo-jumbo.

Uhhhh.... terminated or transferred? If assets are sold (and then distributed), all gains/losses are realized. If transferred, perhaps not all realized. Could this have been a merger, rather than a termination?

Hewitt does a periodic update of pending legislation. Current version, it appears no inclusion of this issue. http://www.hewittassociates.com/_MetaBasic..._ret_031208.pdf

From http://dictionary.law.com per stirpes(purr stir-peas) adj. Latin for "by roots," by representation. The term is commonly used in wills and trusts to describe the distribution when a beneficiary dies before the person whose estate is being divided. Example: "I leave $100,000 to my daughter, Eleanor, and if she shall predecease me, to her children, per stirpes." Thus, if Eleanor dies before her parent, then the $100,000 will be divided among her children equally. A way to make this more clear is to substitute for per stirpes: "…to her children, by right of representation, share and share alike," which is clear to the non-lawyer. If there is no provision for distribution to children of a predeceased child, then the gift will become part of the residue (what is left after specific gifts), and then the grandchildren may not share if there are surviving children of the giver.

There could be. The most obvious circumstance is IF there are any other contributions between now and then. Perhaps someone could suggest that the DRO be clarified on this point?

Ah, what a wonderful idea. But wishful thinking. I guess that's why we have BenefitsLink! Thanks, Dave.

... assuming your "415 amendment" complies with the 415 regulations.

Not quite. Go to http://www.moodys.com/dailyyields. Daily access, but no history. It changes every business day around 10:30 am (ET).

I think the $14K was from the 401(k) plan and the ~$5K applies to the pension plan. In keeping with Mike's interesting suggestion, remember that a QDRO can cover more than one plan, so your legal counsel may be able to deal with both plans, both amounts in one order.

Ask your attorney if you can record any future phone calls from ex-wife?

Not to contradict any of the other responses, but make sure the plan does not already have some generic language that permits the "plan administrator" a certain amount of latitude in its day-to-day responsibilities. IMHO, imposing a reasonable deadline could be considered part of such responsibilites. Sure, there can be debate over "reasonable". Also, look for precedent.

Just my opinion, but....I say the greater of (a) or (d), where (d)= accrued benefit at 1/1/09 = $1000 plus post-98 accrual. Of course, the exact wording of the new benefit accrual formula is important, as well as plan wording of the actuarial increase provision.

OK, Austin, did you borrow it, or take it? If the former, how are you going to return it?

Well stated. Essentially, this points out the ERISA and IRC were written long before anyone thought of hybrid plans, and the statutes simply do not recognize that they are neither DB nor DC as originally contemplated. If the IRS wants correct statutes and regulations, they should argue in favor of Congressional action that creates a new paradigm to cover hybrid plans, instead of forcing as is.

There are other discussion threads about shams, with or without divorce. Try the Search feature.

Jim does not hide his e-mail adddress in the Actuarial Directory: https://www.actuarialdirectory.org/solution...t.aspx?tabid=64