david rigby

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.

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."