david rigby

Be careful. If this includes ER stock with an automatic dividend reinvestment, that will constitute an impermissible increase. (At least, it did several years ago when this happened to one of our clients.)

No. Read here: http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/plan-ter.../page13263.html

No dispute about that reg. cite, but be sure to follow the terms of the document.

PBGC Technical Update 07-1, issued 02/13/07: http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/Whats-Ne.../page15560.html

Per phone conversation with Jim Holland today (02/16), guidance has been drafted. He would not divulge the contents, and expects it will be at least a week before review is complete.

5% owner? If yes, what would be the basis for stopping? If no, what would be the basis for starting? What does the plan say?

replies here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=34377

Is the sponsor/controlled group paying for 2 audits? Any economy of scale available with recordkeeper? trustee? Why not merge the plans?

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=111413,00.html

What is the goal? to roll over the real estate? Can the IRA receive/hold real estate?

Seen any new guidance on the proper interpretation of Section 803 of PPA?

Yes, I noticed that result. In our sampling, a majority female population had a small overall increase; a majority male population had an increase of about 10%. However, in both cases the CL-NC increased about 15%. We are still reviewing, so this is preliminary.

Be careful here. Were the distributions made to these partcipants because the plan was (thought to be) terminated? That is, the timing of distribution to a VT may differ from the timing under a supposed plan termination. I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, but it may be prudent to know all the details.

Implicit somewhere in all this is that the default QPSA and/or QJSA is a 50% continuation. If the plan states otherwise, careful wording in the QDRO may be required. For example, our office has a few plans that define the QPSA using the 50% benefit, but if the EE dies after reaching ER eligbiilty (but before commencement) then the QPSA will be a 100% benefit.

02/08/07 Federal Register http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...pdf/E7-2087.pdf

Yep. I found the cite: ERISA sec. 4006(a)(3)(E)(iii). For CL, don't forget the 10-yr amortization in IRC 412(l)(10).

Perhaps I've got the sequence wrong, but I thought the issuance of a new mortality table for Current Liability purposes will automatically trigger changes in how we calculate the variable premium liability, and this change should be effective immediately. But I've seen nothing from the PBGC. Anyone?

Just what is this APR being used for? Is this an ERISA plan?

"Prudent man" rule?

Isn't the 402(g) limit an individual one? What does the plan say?

http://benefitslink.com/taxregs/td9310.pdf

January 31, 2007 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.48 5.48 Aa 5.83 5.81 5.82 A 6.01 5.97 5.99 Baa 6.22 6.57 6.40 Avg 6.02 5.96 5.99 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.80 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.81 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.98 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 308.0 Yield: 3.52 New Dividend: 10.85

I never heard of that. It was not in the list of tables we studied 25+ years ago for (very old) Part 5 of the SOA exams. I'm suspicious about the year; very unlikely that a table was issued that year, but it could be referring to a later table based on someone born in 1900. Try: http://library.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp Also try a google search.

Thou shalt not violate Section 415. And 401(a)(4), although appears to be a no-brainer from your original data.

I try not to disagree with Mike. BTW, if this "non-profit" has enough cash to make a PS contribution of 46% of total payroll, could someone (IRS perhaps) question its non-profit status? I'm just curious.