david rigby

When you searched PPA for this issue, what did you find?

I doubt that a partial termination requires a plan amendment. However, there may be circumstances under which such amendment would be useful, especially if there is any question of who the "affected" participants are. Beyond doubt, this situation requires some good (but probably simple) documentation in the files of the TPA, the Plan Administrator, etc.

Would that be 3 loans? What does the plan say?

Duplicate post. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=35907

Be careful about settlor vs. non-settlor functions. Is it possible that this person did some of each?

Depends on how close you need to be. Simple is to calculate 1/1/07 PVAB, using your best estimate of 08 417 interest rate (phase-in starts in 08) and mortality, and then roll forward one year. Then adjust for different expected payment date.

(f) liquidate that particular asset and invest in something whose value is never in doubt?

This may not be a violation. Tread carefully; hitting the comp limit is not (necessarily) a trigger to cease elective deferrals. (I'm assuming this is a 401(k) plan.) Suggestions: Review the plan document. Search these Message Boards for more discussion.

No. It is a choice. The employer chooses to cover, or not cover, dependents based on a specific defintion. You choose to get married, or not.

May 31, 2007 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.57 5.57 Aa 5.97 5.96 5.97 A 6.10 6.15 6.13 Baa 6.35 6.65 6.50 Avg 6.14 6.08 6.11 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 4.81 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 4.87 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 5.07

abanky, If it helps to have consensus, I agree 100% with Effen's comments.

Just an opinion (I'm an actuary, not an attorney). 1. Should be based on the terms of the QDRO. And don't try to read any implication into it. 2. Absolutely.

If the term cost is part of your AL and/or NC, then it becomes part of the full funding calculation.

In addition to 409A, consider whether modifications to a qualified plan may accomplish the goal. In other words, define the goal first, then analyze how to reach it.

It is the "Pension Discount Curve and Liability Index" at this site: http://www.soa.org/professional-interests/...es-pension.aspx

Effen, I used the spreadsheet on the SOA page (which is updated monthly, I think), and averaged over the three periods. I got (rounded) 5.25%, 5.75%, 6.0%. (You may be able to justify a rate greater than 6%.)

I assume this double negative is a typo. To clarify, it is extremely rare for a plan to permit a retired participant to change his/her election with respect to the form of payment, once payments have commenced. It is also likley that the plan is not silent on this point.

This situation begs for separate plans.

You might consider reviewing the appropriate tax treaty. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/intern...d=96454,00.html

2b10

Perhaps PA considers it a draft (nothing wrong with that) and is reviwing. If so, separating the AP portion ("just in case") sounds like a prudent thing to do. Of course, mjb is correct about the procedures. Perhaps they forgot to advise you they received your draft.

In addition, please ask the Doc to consider adopting me, and covering me in his plan, preferably with a 415 benefit.

Perhaps you could tell him. Perhaps you could enlist the aid of accountant and/or counsel.

possibly simpler? - Leave both plans alone, and merge at EOY. - Amend B to include the investment options of A, but not the SH, so that the operation of B will be similar to the operation of A. Never look for trouble.

BTW, in case you were not aware, the Academy sent this letter to IRS w/r/t Notice 2007-28: http://www.actuary.org/pdf/pension/irs_0328.pdf