david rigby

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.

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