david rigby

Perfect? More proof that the folks in DC have never balanced a checkbook, or a budget.

... and what do you do if the plan is not covered by the PBGC?

Note that Buyer's adoption of the plan does not automatically cause Seller to cease being an adopting employer. Perhaps both need competent ERISA counsel.

Not unless the plan permits such election.

You may also wish to review these Q&As: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer

Since the original post mentioned a 1099-R for 2006: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099r_06.pdf

Tax treaties on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/internationa...d=96739,00.html

Hmmm. Seems logical to me, but other readers will have more experience. But.....for purposes of the TH test, does it matter? Is the plan TH either way?

Duplicate posting. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=37599&hl=

Yes. Let's remember that we are entitled to use generally accepted actuarial methods.

Prudence may also dictate a review of the past, to see if any "precedent" exists.

Really? Is Inv. Co. A really that incompetent, to fail a simple follow-up transfer of trailing earnings? Or are other facts not yet in evidence?

It appears not. Technical corrections bill has nothing to do with funding issues. Summary of the bill is here: http://hr.cch.com/news/pension/010808a.asp You can read the actual text at http://thomas.loc.gov

Do plan provisions already describe what to do next?

For easy reference, you can read Rev. Ruling 77-2 here: http://www.taxlinks.com/ This is the proposed regulation in the 12/31/07 Federal Register: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...df/E7-25125.pdf See page 74218. Andy raises a good point in his second paragraph. Perhaps he will submit that comment to the IRS (after all, it is a proposed reg).

If you cannot answer that question, you should probably consider rejecting the (draft?) DRO and asking the parties and/or court to clarify.

Is this a joke? Is the TPA attempting to tell the audit firm how (or whether) to do the audit?

From Notice 87-16: This may, or may not, apply to your fact situation. This may be contributions required due to underfunding, experience losses, etc. If so, that does not alter a plan's frozen status.

Data as of 31-DEC-07 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.41 5.41 Aa 5.93 5.67 5.80 A 6.07 6.14 6.11 Baa 6.43 6.68 6.56 Avg 6.14 5.97 6.06 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 3.23 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 3.81 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.43

Careful. In many DB plans, the pre-retirement death benefit for an unmarried participant may be zero.

Any concern about whether a (worthwhile) deduction will be available under 404(a)(7)?

Don't know about specific references to hardship, but this link will take you to IRS regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...26/26tab_02.tpl

JBEA "website" http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/actuaries/index.html

This thread is a perfect place to say..... Go Braves!

Be careful. That is the correct cite, but it may not apply to this case. ERISA Sec. 4021(b) points out the plans that are exempt from Title IV; note especially paragraph (13). If this plan is exempt, then the cited regulation does not apply, and the plan should look to its own terms for guidance.