david rigby

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.

Any common employees (implied, but not definitive)? Why not simply split the plan, via a spin-off? No termination necessary. (Look first for the simplest option, and termination rarely meets that condition.)

Are the Braves still playing?

duplicate posting http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33435

I doubt there is any such thing as "partial termination status". It is an event (or possibly a series of events), dependent on a particular set of facts and circumstances. Only "affected participants" become vested, and it does not automatically create vesting for other (or new) participants. Several prior discussion threads; try the Search feature.

I'm not sure termination is required, if 414(l) is our guide. It does seem to require providing options (such as total distribution) to participants as if the plan terminated, even though the transaction may be a plan merger. (Several prior discussion threads on this topic.) The Q&A cited by Effen may also support this interpretation. As he states, it is difficult to determine how DB features are preserved in a DC plan. If so, why bother?

Seems like trying to put apples into a cherry pie, and then claiming it is still a cherry pie. The 404 UCL is independent of the combined deduction limit, so we get to whether the $50K DC contribution is OK on its own face. If it is, it can be deducted. As Carol states, nothing trumps 415.

But check to see if deferrals after the sale are (or should be) going to the buyer's plan.

I'm no expert on this, but here goes: If the EEs "belong" to the buyer, that implies they will get two W-2's for 2006, from two different employers. If they are being paid by the seller (possibly a convenience), will the seller's payroll system provide 2 W-2's?

But be careful about minimums. Some DB plans have a minimum benefit, such as $20 per month. If this EE continues to work 9 hours a week until NRA, he may be eligible for something.

How strong is the marriage?

Is there any reason that you believe a statute of limitations or statutory cites would limit the Fund Administrator from auditing its own plan? Could the language of the plan and/or the CBA also be the guide?