david rigby

You probably already have language in the plan that uses "shall". If it currently states "shall revert to the employer", then you can amend it to "shall be allocated to participants". Probably best to do so before you receive the IRS letter.

There could be other issues, such as whether one or more of the plans has any "clouds" hanging over it (prohibited transactions, for example). If so, a merger may not be the best action. But PIP and Bird are correct that a merger is much simpler and cheaper than a termination. Also, merging the plans will maintain a larger asset base, which could provide investment flexibility.

Are you suggesting something "trumps" the 415 limit?

Merging can be the best action in some circumstances. Terminating can be the best action in certain circumstances. But you have not described any of the circumstances.

you may wish to include 100% vesting upon death. or not.

Try a Search, using various words, such as embezzle, embezzlement, etc.

Is this different from a terminated vested participant who chooses to leave his/her account balance invested in the Plan? If the balance exceeds $5K, isn't it the participant/beneficiary who gets to decide when to take it? In other words, "What does the plan say?"

My condolences on the loss of your brother. Please note that the Plan in which he participated is a legal document, and the plan sponsor is obliged to follow its written terms. One of those terms is the ability to designate (and change) a beneficiary. If your brother designated someone else (such as a spouse), it is possible that a divorce will not automatically invalidate that designation. If he did not change the designation, then it would (likely) still be in effect. It may be prudent to use written correspondence with the plan sponsor and/or Fidelity. If you have not already done so, perhaps you could restate the facts (you are his only living relative, etc.), and ask them to identify who is the designated beneficiary. (Most plans have a process to assign a beneficiary if there is no valid designation.) Request a written response. Good luck.

Can you provide immediate vesting for all current participants, and a new schedule tomorrow? Yes, but would this be subject to BRF testing? Don't forget, on the day after the sale, the seller is no longer in charge.

"...since it is made under a cash or deferred arrangement..." Where is the cash option? BTW, what does the plan say?

Limits for 2007: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96461,00.html

No expert I, but that won't dissuade me from having an opinion. - It may be important to clarify terminology. GCM 39869 is related to "shut-down" benefits, which may not convey the same meaning as "severance" benefits. - Don't overlook the word "primarily" in the regulation cited.

Probably yes, unless deemed immaterial. BTW, see Q&A 11 in "A Guide to Implementation of Statement 87 on Employers' Accounting for Pensions."

Or London! Or Dublin!

Possibly you mean International Accounting Standard No. 19 (IAS 19)? Call your local actuary, to see if he/she is qualified or can give you a reference. BTW, review of this is "on the table" http://www.iasb.org/Current+Projects/IASB+...pensions%29.htm

Perhaps you already realize this, but your original post used "plan" almost the same as "investment fund". The plan is sponsored by the employer, and the employees then participate in the plan. These participants (at least in a defined contribution) plan will have accounts consisting of contributions from themselves and/or the employer, plus investment earnings. But the investment itself is not the plan.

What "director's plan"?

No. That is incorrect. When money goes elsewhere, it is not available for reinvestment locally. Please, no more idiotic economic theory that states we all are better off because we make less money.

I agree with Andy. If the annuity purchases were since the last PBGC premium filing, you will get a PBGC inquiry if you bypass their plan termination process. Might be easiest to do the Form 500 filing, but read the regs and instructions carefully.

Several prior discussion threads on this topic. Try the Search feature.

Amen. It's not supposed to be only about who has the lowest cost. Think "value".

zora, can you provide a link?

Effen's point is that if no one (you or your employer) put more contributions in the account after the "magic date", then 50% of that amount, plus losses and earnings, will equal 50% of today's amount. (Of course, you also have to adjust if there were any payments from the account in the meantime.) Perhaps this scenario is not likely, but if it applies, just go with the flow. If there were payments into or out of the account, then the disbursement may not be in accordance with the QDRO, as you have described it. But make sure that is what it says.

Got link? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16151

A plan termination should not inhibit normal ongoing activities of the plan "in process". For example, a VT partcipant reaches NRA and requests commencement of the benefit. Is there any reason for the plan to tell that person he/she must wait? No. However, the participant may voluntarily delay a request for benefits. For example, assume the plan termination will cause the plan to purchase annuities for retirees in-pay status. If the above participant delays commencement, then he/she may be entitled to a choice of a purchased annuity or a lump sum, depending on the terms of the plan, but such choice would not be available if benefits had already commenced. (Of course, such delay may also be a risk of forfeiture due to death.) BTW, an IRS determination letter is not required. So, whether to delay payments for such letter is a policy decision of the plan administrator.