david rigby

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

Pardon my idiocy, but what is a "non-retiring employee"?

Although implied in the title to the forum, the original question does not state this is related to a benefit plan. There have been a few earlier discussion threads on this topic, and the Search feature may help you. (You will probably find additional comments like the one from mjb.) For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31425 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26964 BTW, in our office, we do not use password protected or zip files, as those protections are not significant.

Maybe. It depends. Seriously. A few more facts, please.

It is possible I missed it reading above, but have we established that ERISA is relevant? Could we be talking about governmental plans?

Right! If the plan is ambiguous on how to handle the short plan year, amend away the ambiguity. For example, credited service may be different from vesting service.

Of course, you have informed your E&O carrier of this arrangement?

Perhaps this is the reference needed: IRS Reg. 1.404(a)-14©:

I agree with above advice. You could read ERSIA sec. 4041(b)(2)(D) either way, since it uses "commence" and "final". However, also see 4041(b)(3), and (especially) the corresponding Reg. 4041.22. IMHO, that regulation makes it clear how the PBGC views the statute.

I found nothing in the Gray Book on point.

Have the auditee draft part of the audit report?! Is the auditor lazy? I agree with you about the benefit calculations: it is nonsense to retype (most) corrections. The auditor may be viewiing the forest but missing the trees: the important aspect of calculation worksheets is that they are verified, initialed, checked, etc. Worksheets are not public documents; IMHO, it is reasonable for worksheets to show corrections as they are made.

Hold on here. If you work for the local housing authority, that could mean you are covered by a governmental plan (that is, sponsored by an organixation that is a government or agency of a government). If so, such plans are not (automatically) subject to ERISA requirements. Thus, the terms of the plan, and not any requirements under ERISA, will determine what are the naming/changing rights for any beneficiary designation.