david rigby

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?

And check the vesting for Dad.

September 29, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.42 5.42 Aa 5.72 5.59 5.66 A 5.90 5.83 5.87 Baa 6.17 6.54 6.36 Avg 5.93 5.85 5.89 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.56 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.61 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.80 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 307.2 Yield: 3.60 New Dividend: 11.06

Is the governmental plan subject to IRC 411?

Does the plan have loan and/or hardship provisions?

You might also try the BenefitsLink search feature: http://benefitslink.com/search/

It looks to me like a whole new definition of safe harbor, and does not change/alter/invalidate prior definitions.

Is there a reason not to use a plan effective date of 01/01/06, and calendar plan year? Do they want to adopt me?

FYI, earlier speculation on 2007 indexing. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32583

Good questions. The "guidance" indicates that all terminations of employment are assumed to involuntary until the sponsor proves otherwise. IMHO, just because a termination is determined to be involuntary does not mean it must be considered an "affected" participant. In other words, the principle of a partial termination is to provide vesting to those participants who are no longer able to earn vesting service due to action of the employer (OK, oversimplifed). An employee sleeping on the job, or embezzling, or caught in a lie on his/her job application, etc. may be terminated, but the cause is (at least) partially due to action of the employee. Applying for a determination letter may be overkill. The sponsor should evaluate the cost of the vesting and decide if that cost is acceptable. Often, it is relatively small.

I agree with Steve C's conclusion.

Recommended reading: comments above from Mike, Blinky, and vebaguru.

Always, a partial termination must be evaluated under its own facts and circumstances. What is meant by "fires"? Were the two employees embezzling, sleeping on the job? Were they terminated because the boss thought he/she could not afford that much staff, then decided two months later that was an incorrect assumption? Was the severance of employment really involuntary? etc.

Can we assume this should refer to the assets of the plan rather than the bank?

This is Joel's pattern, which is why very few get sucked into his "discussions".