david rigby

Andy, possibly an ABCD issue as well?

File the 5330 as soon as possible. The 10% cannot be waived, and you probably cannot "pre-pay" any interest and/or penalty. If there is any possibility to "advance" some other contributions (made for a later plan year), that is worthy of consideration. You cannot change the funding method on the amended Schedule B, but you can consider whether any assumptions should be changed.

It is difficult to see how IRC 412 would apply, after reading 412(h).

Several prior discussion threads on this topic. You may wish to try the Search feature. A keyword such as "severance" may help.

Blinky is correct about the "letter of the law". However, that does not mean it is better to terminate; it might be better to freeze the DB plan; we don't know all the facts. It is usually best to have all facts on the table when making plan design decisions.

March 30, 2007 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.43 5.43 Aa 5.80 5.83 5.82 A 5.97 6.00 5.99 Baa 6.25 6.54 6.40 Avg 6.01 5.95 5.98 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 4.50 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 4.60 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 4.87

Report them on a Schedule SSA (don't worry about whether they have already been reported).

Surely this was discussed at the Enrolled Actuaries meeting, earlier this week. Any attendees able to provide feedback?

The original proposed solution ignores any possible FICA tax.

- "2006" should refer to a fiscal year beginning in 2006, not (necessarily) ending in 2006. - See Q&A5 of IRS Notice 2007-28 for discussion about plan amendments in the last 2 years.

I read it slightly differently. - First, note the phrase in A12 "... four safe harbor rules..." Thus, there may be other methods (although I'm not sure what). - Second, it appears Blinky is referring to the first sentence that begins "Another approach..." I agree that a literal reading refers to the entire DC account balance; but that implies that "defined benefit minmum" (in the same sentence) refers to the cumulative DB minimum, rather than the 2% as Blinky states. I skimmed the GrayBook, and found nothing on point.

Hmmm. IMHO, resubmitting an original filing is about the same as submitting an amended filing, and neither will be successful. If it were me, I would re-list the same D's from 2001 on the next SSA, ignoring the possible duplication. BTW, since mergers are involved, is it possible that a changed EIN is the "culprit"?

Is the ADP test passed?

I'm shocked! Shocked!Sounds like this sponsor should have a different type of plan.

Is this an Early Retirement window? If so, you can discriminate in favor of NHCE's, but the preferred method is to identify the "target" employees by something other than name, such as classification, department, age and service, combination of above factors, etc.

The first sentence from Qdrophile is the key. Federal regulators are not particularly happy to see violations of this. Of course, this is the reason ERISA required a plan to be a written document. Perhaps you can mention this point to your management. As stated, you may be able to amend the plan prospectively.

If you want to confirm Tom's comment, you can search these Message Boards for more background and commentary.

Upper right corner. click on "Options", then "standard".

Don't delete. Please show your answer, and references. Leaving it here will make it a reference for others in the future.

Is this plan covered by IRC 411? could this plan be sponsored by a governmental organization? Is collective bargaining relevant? If so, even if no other impediment, it may not be possible to make such change without agreement by the bargaining unit.

I have no problem notifying Jim Holland, but why would the EA need to sue the sponsor? I'm just curious.

Good comments. I suggest returning to Effen's first question. Plan changes/design should always be preceded by reasonable discussion of "what are you trying to accomplish?"

I think this is a plan termination, but we need more facts and circumstances.

I agree, except that this should be deduct.

Difficult, since he is dead.