david rigby

Correct. See IRC 415(b)(5), and don't forget to read subparagraph ©: http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-D-I-B-415.html

Note cross reference in PPA section 906 to IRC 7701(a)(40): Thus, claiming to be a tribe may not be sufficient, since the Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of the Interior, get to decide which group is a legitimate tribe. This point may be relevant because there are some "disputed" tribes.

I think there is something in PPA06 that specifies plans of Indian tribal governments are to be treated analogously to plans of state and local governments. (Sorry, don't have the text handy.)

Possibly, but it may be hasty to assume "violation". For example, we don't know the circumstances that led to: Nevertheless, Mike's suggestion to review EPCRS, and Joyce Kahn, seems appropriate. Seems likely that the IRS has dealt with this question before.

From About BenefitsLink: I'm pretty sure this website is not for the purpose of sharing fee information. What do you think?

I could find nothing on point in the Gray Book (searched all years).

The attorneys would tell us this "assumes facts not in evidence". The original post did not say anything about serving in the military, or being on leave to serve in the military. Nevertheless, good advice to make sure a distributable event has occurred.

This principle may be relevant when discussing governmental plans, but if it's an ERISA plan, this is nonsense. Both IRC 411(d)(6) and the corresponding regulations refer to "participant".

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).