david rigby

The IRS view ultimately relates to "what is a reasonable funding method?" Read here some prior discusions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29346

Not sure about rationale, but this is the one I thought of: Consider a plan that pays full lump sums. Suppose the business owner/management does not want to pay a lump sum to a particular retiring/terminating EE for whatever reason (fear that he/she will use the LS to set up a competing business, etc). By delaying the process of certifying the FTAP/AFTAP, the plan falls below the level at which a LS can be paid. No doubt, others can contribute additional reasons.

If the monies have been paid from the plan, why is Sec. 206 relevant?

Wow is right. Can you elaborate for those of us who are idiots?

Is this the same as your prior post? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=37740

Perhaps you can draw his attention to the plan provision that describe (1) vesting, and (2) QDROs.

Maybe. Does the plan contain language that complies with IRC 414(p(3)? "A domestic relations order meets the requirements of this paragraph only if such order - ... (B) does not require the plan to provide increased benefits (determined on the basis of actuarial value), and ..." This is (usually) an insufficient justification for doing something that would violate the plan document.

1. Could this already be identified in the CBA? 2. The employer could easily handle this if the plan had some eligibility requirements.

Blinky, since I'm behind the curve in this area, I'll just ask: any help for your question here? http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

... and even when there is no collective bargaining.

There is no single "correct" answer, but SoCal's suggestion is a good one.

Got any differences in optional forms? Got any grandfathered groups and/or provisions? (Just in case not covered by your Item 2.) Got any TH issues (especially if in one plan but not the other)? Got milk?

Daily Bond Yields and Key Indicators Data as of 31-JAN-08 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.38 5.38 Aa 5.90 5.75 5.83 A 6.07 6.16 6.12 Baa 6.40 6.85 6.63 Avg 6.12 6.03 6.08 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.48 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.32 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.20

I doubt this is as rare as SoCal implies. This is why I suggest plans permit distribution at NRD, and not suspend upon rehire. Since many rehired retirees are part-time (more than 1000 hours, but less than FT), very often (about 99% of the time in my experience) any additional accrual, offset by payments received, is zero. This gives the employer flexibility in its workforce staffing.

One could argue that state courts that sought to attach qualified plan benefits (in a divorce) were in violation of the original preemption clause of ERISA, but they did it anyway and no one wanted to litigate the point. Congress responded in DEFRA (1984) with the creation of a QDRO, thus creating a specific exemption.

Consensus? Shouldn't that be Amendment 14?

Not sure a 204(h) notice is required, but you can do it "just in case". In general, the only other requirement is the 411(d)(6) clause in your plan amendment. My guess is that your actuary will say the cost impact of this change is zero.

This looks like the age-old question: what does the plan say? Likely, there is corollary question: what does the collective bargaining agreement say?

Might be prudent to reconcile these statements. If not, then this may be a client you don't want.

Similar to every other conference.

It depends. What did they say when you told them they already have a plan?

You can (generally) get the same result by giving a full year of vesting service for the short plan year, even if benefit service for short PY is less than 1.0.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=34780 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32843 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20693 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25992

Are these two statements related?

Does the inability to "recapture" change the correctness of the distribution? If the payment is incorrect (more accurately, too much), then the IRA rollover is incorrect. Whether the plan administrator does anything about it may be a different issue, no doubt with advice from the Plan's ERISA counsel.