david rigby

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.

Published as a proposed reg on 12/02/2005: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...pdf/E5-6742.pdf In the table, two of the columns have superscripts: 7 or 8. No footnote number 7 opr 8. Anyone know if this is a typo, or something omitted?

This myth persists.While it can be common for an employee to have 5 jobs in his/her twenties, it is flawed logic (not to mention foolishly ignoring simple observations) to assume that pattern will continue in his/her thirties, forties, fifties, etc. Do you know anyone who has had 4-5 jobs in his/her fifties? I don't. It is flawed logic to say a DB plan is not beneficial. It is flawed logic to say every employee is savvy enough to do their own investing, or wants to. Enough!

Hmmm. If the TPA "resists", I might be able to suggest a new TPA.

Hey Andy, good point. Do you think the IRS will ever finalize the proposed 412 regs? 24 years old!

October 31, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.39 5.39 Aa 5.64 5.55 5.60 A 5.84 5.76 5.80 Baa 6.09 6.40 6.25 Avg 5.86 5.78 5.82 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.54 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.58 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.77 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 321.2 Yield: 3.45 New Dividend: 11.10

As far as I know, they seem to be sticking to that position. This is from the Gray Book: GRAY BOOK QUESTION 2006-14 Deductible Limit: Adjustment to Unfunded Current Liability for Deduction for Small Plan IRC §404(a)(1)(D)(ii) provides that in the case of a plan having 100 or fewer participants for a plan year, unfunded current liability does not include the liability attributable to benefit increases for highly compensated employees (HCEs) resulting from a plan amendment which is made or becomes effective within the last 2 years. a) A new calendar year DB plan is started effective 1/1/2006 and grants past service for benefit accrual purposes. For purposes of § 404(a)(1)(D)(ii), is the new plan considered an amendment subject to the two-year restriction or may the full UCL be deducted? b) Section 404(a)(7)(A) limits deductions when there is a combination of DB and DC plans, generally to 25% of payroll. However, if §404(a)(1)(D) applies, the maximum deduction “shall not be less than the unfunded current liability.” Does the §404(a)(1)(D)(ii) requirement to exclude HCE liability apply for this purpose? RESPONSE a) Adoption of a new plan is considered to be an amendment for this purpose. b) Yes. Copyright © 2006, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

Not exactly on point, but it may illustrate the IRS perspective: GRAY BOOK QUESTION 2002-24 Section 415: Effect of Plan Amendment on Adjustment for Participation Less than 10 Years A calendar plan year defined benefit pension plan is amended in July of 2001 to liberalize eligibility effective January 1, 2000. 1) For purposes of the reduction of the §415-dollar limitation for participation less than 10 years under IRC §415(b)(5), does a participant who enters the plan in 2000 on account of this amendment receive a year of participation for 2000? 2) Does the answer change if the amendment was executed before March 15, 2001 to satisfy IRC §412©(8)? RESPONSE 1) While a grant of past service is permissible, it is not possible to amend a plan to start participation after the year has closed. A plan may adopt a corrective amendment pursuant to §1.401(a)(4)-11(g) in order to expand participation to satisfy nondiscrimination, minimum coverage or minimum participation failures. However, participation is recognized retroactively only for these limited purposes, and not for purposes of §415. 2) No. Copyright © 2002, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but it seems you have a lump sum option in the QDRO procedures, but not in the plan document. Is that correct? Can QDRO procedures amend the plan? What do you mean by "... other than a cash out..."? (What else is a lump sum distribution?) Does this refer to "under $5000", or does every terminating participant get a lump sum option?

Plus an audit?

Other than Effen's suggestion to unfreeze, the other way to use up surplus is to cover someone else. (I'm available.)

Don't forget the most famous piece of advice: What does the plan say?

May I watch?

In this case, it appears that the plan intends any and all "excess amounts" to be allocated to participants. That means all dollars, no matter what day it occurs. Caution, many plans that have this or similar language will specify which participants. Be sure to follow the plan specifications.

Run?