david rigby

Note that, under Tom's suggestion, anyone (including doctors) hired after 1/1/06 and before 7/1/06 will enter the plan on 7/1/07.

Seems difficult to claim that the participant requested this payment, especially since the original post implies that the corrective distribution is required by the plan.

BTW, as you probably already know, if the DRO contains the SSN of the P and/or AP, it is prudent to have it removed, since the QDRO will be a public document. In these days of heightened interest in personal security, it seems ridiculous to require the QDRO to contain the SSN. Just a thought.

I like it. Your reference to "contingencies" is (IMHO) only outlining multiple (non-overlapping) scenarios. Note that the AP benefit at 55 is "1/2 of the value", which is probably not one-half of the accrued monthly benefit, in absolute dollars. Suggestion: Since the DRO specifies what happens if the participant dies first, why not also specify what happens if the AP dies first before commencment, and what happens if the AP dies first after commencment?

Peruse here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/compliance_assistance.html#section5 For example, 2008 Schedule SB: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2008-5500-Schedule-SB.pdf

Exactly right. The word "divorce" does not appear in IRC 414(p).

Daily Bond Yields and Key Indicators Data as of 29-FEB-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.42 5.42 Aa 5.93 5.79 5.86 A 6.09 6.20 6.15 Baa 6.51 6.99 6.75 Avg 6.18 6.10 6.14 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.07 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.11 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.18

The provider is (should be) irrelevant to the amortization schedule. Before assuming the new provider is incorrect, check the terms of the loan, to make sure the prior schedule agreed with the terms of the loan document. BTW, please turn off your CapsLock key.

You can find Revenue Rulings here: http://www.taxlinks.com/

If we are talking about a CB plan (or other hybrid) designed to fit as an "applicable defined benefit plan" under PPA section 701, the minimum vesting requirement is 100% at 3 years. New IRC 411(b)(5).

Before getting counsel, get the SPD.

"my 401k"? "my friend"? No matter. For other discussion on similar situations, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33713

As I understand the original question, that code section does not apply. Although IRS may disagree, I see nothing in IRC that would prohibit an accrued benefit to decrease solely because a person's compensation (in this case, average compensation) goes down. However, just as important is careful reading of the plan document. In particular, the original Q mentions PT and FT, concepts which are not usually defined (or relevant) in most qualified plan documents. For example, if EE works 1200 hours, gets another year of service, perhaps the plan definition will include that pay in determination of average, but if the EE works 800 hours, then such year is excluded.

I agree that this will (probably) cause backloading problems. I have seen this provision once before, but it was applied only to the vesting percent (eg, 100% vested if "laid off" with 3+ YOS), but don't know if it was ever a BRF concern.

Why? (I don't work w ME plans, but I'm willing to learn.)

There is a reason that we learned how to diagram sentences. But I digress. A few thoughts: - Does "after RBD" mean that minimum distributions had (or had not) commenced? - The context appears to be a DC plan. Is that correct? - Is there any reason that the plan's existing death benefit provisions are insufficient to guide distribution? - Since distribution upon death will (apparently) exhaust the plan, is there any reason to terminate it? More to the point, why is anyone discussing plan termination?

Can you "unterminate" the DC plan, make the transfer, and then create a new termination date in 2008?

I think that advice is mostly correct. Just be sure you observe all plan provisions related to the cash balance conversion, as if you were doing it concurrently, then determine the payout available at today's date. But, the original post used the term "DRO". Before doing anything else, follow your plan's QDRO procedures to document that the DRO is (or is not) qualified, including notification to the participant. Since the plan probably issued some statement to the participant showing the CB conversion, it may be prudent to revise that statement at the time you complete the analysis of the AP portion (assuming the order is qualified).

... and look very carefully at the QDRO to determine whether it also includes "accrued amounts".

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099r.pdf

Perhaps you would like to read the relevant documents: PPA section 901, beginning on p. 247 of this document: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/ppa2006.pdf Also, here is IRS Notice 2008-7 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-08-07.pdf

Exactly. In other words, this is controlled by the plan provisions.

Hold on here. To whom did Jim refer? Are we talking about plan sponsor (who "delays" sending census data to the actuary), trustee (who "delays" sending asset information to the actuary), the actuary? What is the authority for saying delay is not permitted?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf Page 26 lists those types of distributions that are not eligible for rollover.

The Rev. Proc. is not automatically repealed by PPA, but certain parts of it are overridden (such as the ability to adopt the aggregate method); that does not invalidate the RP. IMHO, Approval 13 is still valid. Is there some reason or conflict that you think would interfere with this?