david rigby

No "cost of living" is not identical to "enhancement". As mjb as suggested, the language you quote about "enhancement" implies the plan was amended after the AP began receiving payments and affects the benefits of the participant. Depending on the definition of that enhancement, it is possible that the AP should share in its effect. It is also possible that the terms of the QDRO should trigger the plan administrator to increase the benefit to the AP automatically. Read the QDRO carefully. Read the enhancement carefully. Just an opinion: an increase in the participant's benefit solely due to an increase in the participant's comp is not an "enhancement", based on the language you quote but there may be other relevant QDRO provisions to read before drawing a conclusion. BTW, do you represent the plan, the AP, the participant, other?

Are the plans merging?

Others can contribute thoughts about insurance. Some of the most common ways to use up excess: - double-check to see that you have determined the 415 limit correctly, especially for those over SSRA; - cover someone else. BTW, have payments commenced? If all else fails, I'm willing to be covererd.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/GALLADE.TC.TC.WPD.pdf

My experience with LI in a DB plan is very limited, but I'll give my 2 cents. - Does the plan really say "life insurance will be purchased"? What if the EE is uninsurable? - Shouldn't the plan define the benefit, and then permit the purchase of insurance? - The plan should not care what the agent says, since that person may only represent one company, and that company is not mentioned in the plan (or is it?) - The amount and timing of insurance purchase is part of the Administrator's responsibilities, so the PA needs some procedures to guide. - If the plan language is ambiguous, or no help, I think you can amend it as needed, since this is a death benefit greater than the QPSA.

PBGC covered plan? Other context?

There may be prior discussion to help you. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29365

Some focused advice here: http://www.401khelpcenter.com/Bundled_RFP.html

Thanks for sharing. What most folks miss about this is that you can read it because you already know how to spell.

A safe harbor notice is required before the plan year begins, so a 12/01/06 notice cannot apply to the 2006 plan year (unless the plan year begins 12/31/06).

November 30, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.20 5.20 Aa 5.50 5.41 5.46 A 5.68 5.62 5.65 Baa 5.93 6.26 6.10 Avg 5.70 5.62 5.66 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.42 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.44 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.63 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 324.2 Yield: 3.43 New Dividend: 11.13

But don't forget to include it in subsequent years' TH testing.

Do you have examples of this happening? anywhere? ever?

Amend the plan? Discuss with the attorney who "drafted" the restatement?

You care about the plan provisions. If the plan defines service as years, using the 1000-hour rule, you don't care about months. You don't care about termination and rehire; you only care about the plan provisions. BTW, you also don't care about perceived "fairness". In most cases, such subjective analysis is used to develop plan design, not to interpret the plan. Did I mention that you care about the plan provisions?

"The plan is silent as to this issue -- technically, the lack of any provision allowing for a pro-ration suggests that we must use whatever annual salary she actually had. But the intent of the plan in determining the "highest" average suggests that the intent is to give the participant the benefit of pro-rating her earnings rather than skewing her average by using less than full years of employment." I agree with the first part of the quote, but disagree with the comment about "intent". The answer should be to do what the plan says. IMHO, inferring a proration could violate the terms of the plan.

Hold on. No mention of whether this participant is still actively employed, or whether the plan permits distribution prior to severance of employment. What does the plan say?

DB 415 limit in 1986 = 90,000 DC 415 limit in 1986 = 30,000 BTW, look at Table 7 here: http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/areas-of-pr...fits-actuaries/

Have you looked here? http://benefitslink.com/jobs/by_date.stm

Probably. It would be very surprising if the document did not cover the benefit payable on death of a VT. Check the plan's definition of QPSA, and related sections.

This may not be as simple as saying "I waive...." Suggested reading would be threads (on this Message Board) which includes the phrase "majority owner" or "substantial owner". For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16104

I agree. BTW, DC limit in 1991 = $30,000.

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96461,00.html

Search for deaths here: http://ssdi.genealogy.rootsweb.com/

Or create a new username, and stop using the old one.