david rigby

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?

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.