david rigby

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.

We know what you mean, but you may wish to consider avoiding the word "kickback" in the future.

The method used by the IRS for the Schedule B (for DB plans) is: i = 2I/(A+B-I), where A = BOY value B = EOY value I = net investment return amount (not rate) = B-A-Contributions+Payments The result (i) is a rate/percent. This formula assumes all transactions occur in the middle of the period, so it may not be appropriate for all uses, especially if the transactions are "front-loaded" or "back-loaded" in the period. However, it usually provides a reasonable value, even for comparison purposes.

"Most" is usually not considered a statistic. Can you share what evidence you have to support this claim? Thanks.

So what? The Plan is terminating, and should not be held hostage to a missing participant. BTW, be sure you have done all you can to verify whether the participant is still alive.

How about an immediate annuity? Insurance companies are usually glad to sell them.

Don't forget about vesting, including a possible partial termination.

A partial termination is obvious from the facts stated. But why not freeze and/or terminate the plan? You can be sure the employees will be asking for a distribution of some kind, and won't want to wait until 2009.

... but the plan administrator should not ignore the possibility of fraud. In the words of Dr. House, "Everybody lies."

That may be too much generalization. No guarantee that this is up-to-date: http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/St...Withholding.pdf

Not quite. UC will be required in 2008 and beyond for purposes of determining minimum and maximum. This does not preclude any other method for other planning/budgeting purposes. This may be what myatt intended by his phrase "...continuing my current methodology as well for the client..." Sad to think that the excellent text books by Barnet Berin and Arthur W. Anderson will no longer get much use.

Is this a cash balance plan? (Not contradicting Mike, just asking.)

The 20% withholding applies to distributions that are eligible for rollover. RMD are not rollable. Here is the 2007 form W-4P: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4p.pdf

In the Nov. 23 Federal Register, the IRS cancelled the hearing: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...df/E7-22893.pdf

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. IRA's, yes. Qualified plans, no.