david rigby

Also, note that link has only one rate: the Aa rate on Corporate bonds. If you need the rate on Utility or Industrial bonds, you must use a different source of information.

Mike's comment about "tip of the iceberg" is exactly what I was thinking. Also, get a handle on what magnitude is in question: how many $ for 2002 forfeitures? how many participants?

Is this a plan termination?

You've got to be kidding! Many plans could be amended to permit changes post commencment, but why would you do so? "Empathy" is hardly a reason to put the plan at risk for the second guessing of most retirees.

New hires are easy. It is transfers that will be the problem.

Not sure you will find such a cite. The general explanation is that the non-discrimination parts of the IRC and regs are devoted to minmizing discrimination in favor of HCEs. Thus, you can discriminate against some HCEs, or against some NHCEs, as long as you do not discriminate in favor of the HCE group.

Is it the responsibility of the plan administrator and/or trustee to determine whether or not a participant is a "legal resident" of a state? How would a participant who moves to another state not be a resident of that state?

I agree. Don't fight this, just start using a "masked" SSN.

I agree with Andy. You cannot count on the administration to be accurate. Alternatively, you can encourage the EE to commence payment at NRD (amend the plan if necessary), but you cannot require it.

And check to see if the terms of the plan might automatically reject the "contribution". It's a long shot, but easy to check.

I'm no expert on PT's, but if you cannot contribute stock, how can you count it in the Funding Standard Account? Looks like a zero contribution for that purpose. Likely, this sponsor needs ERISA counsel, fast.

This situation, or similar, has been discussed at several actuarial meetings. It usually boils down to what Andy stated, especially the admonition to review your engagement.

July 31, 2007 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.62 5.62 Aa 6.03 5.98 6.01 A 6.18 6.34 6.26 Baa 6.46 6.80 6.63 Avg 6.22 6.19 6.21 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 4.53 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 4.71 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.97

W-4P http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4p.pdf 1. By reviewing the instructions, one sees that this form can be used for additional withholding (greater than the 10% or 20%, as applicable). 2. You used "logic" and "government" in the same sentence. Ha Ha! 3. No.

Incorrect. It means somebody did it wrong, not that the table is invalid.

Alas... I already told you.

Alas, you seem to have missed the point, again. 1. The "numbers" suggested by Doug and SoCal are reasonable guesses. 2. They are guesses, but your original post asks that it be compared to what? A "right" answer? 3. The universe of 6/30 measurement dates is much less than at 12/31. 4. It is theoretically incorrect to determine a discount rate based solely on reference to one or more indexes, or based on comparison to whatever others are doing. But you want a prediction. Here's mine: auditors will put increasing emphasis on the objective criteria and mechanism for choosing a discount rate (or salary scale, etc) and will be signing off on the process rather than the result. More of this in 2006 than in 2005; I expect to see much more at the end of 2007.

See duplicate post http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=36182

Generally, plans sponsored by governmental entities are not subject to ERISA. But there may be plan provisions and/or state laws that are relevant.

Have you considered contacting the clown, or perhaps the prior actuary? Sure there is, exactly what the defintion states. Don't know if it was done correctly, but we should not assume a table is invalid just because it is not "standard". The purpose of (any) scale is to permit the modification of any table, thus creating a new table.

Ouch! Go Braves!

SOA table Manager. http://library.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp Click on "Catalog of all available titles" Scale G is tables 908 and 909. 83 IAM Basic, Female = table 823 83 IAM Basic, Male = table 824 83 IAM, Female = table 829 83 IAM, Male = table 830 If you need to know how to proceed, or which table is most suitable to your situation, or how to apply the projection scale, I am available for hire.

Aside to tuni88: you may have missed the point. There is no single correct rate, especially because there are so many different opinions about rounding. There may not even be a correct range. Whether or not 6.25% will be "prevailing" is something we will know only after we see public filings or surveys. Please note Doug's correct comment and the significance of setting the rate that is most apppropriate for each plan. Each plan's duration and cash flows is the correct starting point, not an external market index.BTW, I post Moody's rates here each month. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27329

Q&A90-15 did not include the G/L in the question. Probably because it should be obvious that you do it first (assuming last year's method is not a spread-gain method), as described by SoCal.