david rigby

Depends on how well the freeze amendment is written. Normally, "freeze" means no new entrants.

Earlier white paper from the economists at the Treasury Department.http://www.treasury.gov/offices/economic-p...urve_020705.pdf

Hold on now! This was issued by the IRS, not by "you EA's".

Did you just state that all Enrolled Actuaries are insane? (I'm not saying you're wrong, just asking.)

Mike's conjecture is a good one, and consistent with the goal of bringing the various interest and mortality bases in line: use the arithmetic average of the q's from the IRC430 table. But, we are dealing with the government here: common sense does not always rule.

.... but don't spend too much on legal fees, considering the amount at stake.

What is all the excitement? Baseball season ended about two weeks ago.

Not yet. Perhaps next week.

Today marks the 50th anniversary of both the original Sputnik and the premiere of "Leave it to Beaver". Coincidence?

You may find this interesting. http://qualifiedpensionconsulting.com/ppab...can-be-a-crime/

Data as of 28-SEP-07 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.76 5.76 Aa 6.12 5.94 6.03 A 6.22 6.26 6.24 Baa 6.45 6.73 6.59 Avg 6.26 6.17 6.22 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 4.08 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 4.44 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.84

I suggest careful review w/r/t participants with a zero accreud benefit. - If the plan is partially frozen (for example, frozen only to new entrants) then it does not get the free pass on top heavy minimums. - Some plans have a minimum benefit that applies only at NRD. Unless that has been amended away, it could apply to one of these zero participants.

While Mike's comment is (as usual) correct, the original post raises questions - what is the goal? - why favor NHCEs over HCEs? The design presented is not the most common. Is there something else going on here? Would the HCEs like to be able to defer larger amounts?

Make sure your attorney is well-versed in QDRO's. The postings on this Message Board may also be useful.

NO and NO. The IRS has consistently stated that the 10% excise tax is not waivable because it is statutory. Very likley they will impose interest and penalties for late filing (although maybe not if less than30 days late).

Do a search of these Message Board for "sham termination".

I've been separated from my copies of SAS70 and SAS73. Don't remember how I got them in the first place. Anyone have a link where I can get copies (free, of course).

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.