david rigby

Interesting. Apparently, "ezactuary" does not know what the "U" stands for in the UP-1984 table. For accuracy, use the site mentioned by SoCal: http://library.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp The table you ask about is number 831.

SoCal is correct that this is a decision to be made by the auditor. However, I've done this once, when a sponsor was considering going public. The method employed was to use an adoption date ("transistion date") as of 3 years ago, and show three years of financial statements. Depending on the reason for the transistion, other methods may be valid.

I agree that it would be unfair. However, we are talking about the IRS here. The W-2 instructions for that box refer to IRS Publication 590, IRS Notice 98-49, and IRS Notice 87-16. Notice 87-16 is the most significant of the three; Q&A16 supports the analysis given by SoCal, but read carefully. The user may wish to have legal or tax advisor provide input on the proper interpretation.

Generally, I agree with SoCal. However, I'm not sure that "effectively moved your valuation date" is the same thing as actually changing your valuation date. Nevertheless, altering your expectation about benefits to be paid is not only practical, but needed; since the EA expects annuitiues to be purchased during the coming 12 months, that should be included as an assumption.

Perhaps the DOL website or the Bureau of Labor Statistics?

Who knows? But do you really want to be taking specific investment advice from an internet discussion board? The best advice has already been given: seek out good mutual funds. If you want to invest in energy stocks, there are mutual funds that do that.

This is an assumption that the IRA investment cannot have negative returns.

Go back to first principles. See paragraph 45 in FAS87, and Q&A62 in the FAS87 Guide to Implementation. To quantify, you can use the "building block" approach, by identifying the expected rate of return for each asset class, and then weight those by the actual amounts in each class. Note that this usually produces a range, rather than a single number. The goal is not "...to justify the use of the rate the client has selected", but to select a rate that is reasonable, based on actual investments. Make sure both the plan sponsor and the auditor do not think of this rate as "what you expect to earn in the next 12 months."

December 29, 2006 (Friday) MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.46 5.46 Aa 5.75 5.68 5.72 A 5.95 5.89 5.92 Baa 6.18 6.51 6.35 Avg 5.96 5.89 5.93 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.67 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.69 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.87 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 326.2 Yield: 3.47 New Dividend: 11.31

Ever heard of vesting?

I agree with Effen (I think). If the use of "irrevocable annuity contract" is meant to say that the plan purchased a single premium annuity contract for the participant's benefit, then the plan has relinquished assets in exchange for releasing liabilities. Thus, the plan no longer has any responsibility for that participant, and the contract is not a plan asset. In this case, a plan termination, it is difficult to imagine any other use of this terminology.

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?