david rigby

Is this what the plan states?

Isn't this an employee communciation issue more than a plan design issue? If the sponsor wants to give more in a PS plan, do so, and tell the employees that is your goal. Putting it in the plan is not worth the bother.

Does IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4 Q&A2(b)(2)(v) help?

Duplicate postings. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33039

This seems to be a question of proper plan definitions. If not clear, then maybe an amendment is in order. Also, does it matter? That is, does anyone get vested without having 5 full years?

Could the plan purchase an annuity, and could that annuity have a death benefit beyond the J&S (as permitted by the plan)?

If depends. If the plan purchases an annuity, probably not.

We did an independent calculation of the Corp bond rate and got 5.72% for the month, and 5.77% for the weighted average.

From the White House website, 08/04/06, "I look forward to signing this important legislation into law soon."

Is he receiving the 415 benefit? If not, amend the plan to increase the benefit, before purchasing the annuity.

Amend to increase the target benefit? Amend to add a PS feature?

We definitely won't see anything before it is signed. Jim Holland states that the IRS is keenly aware of the need for official guidance on the CL rates. For now, we should give them the benefit of the doubt; remember that PFEA was signed on a Saturday, and the IRS issued guidance on Monday. Pretty good.

Alternative: amend the plan to permit distribution to employees over 65 while still employed? (Asusming 65 is plan's NRA.)

Don't we all feel better knowing that the plaintiff attorneys got paid? I wonder what my next career will be?

I'm unsure the proposed amendment, as described above, would be OK, or whether it might be considered a 411(d)(6) violation. Even if a gray area, why would the sponsor want to be so harsh? What is the proposed freeze date? Will participants receive a "certified" benefit calculation? Will that calculation (certified or not) show the pre-hire assumed compensation? How much time will the participant have to respond to this? Practicality is useful here, as well as precedent. How much time/information is currently provided to a VT?

I'm surprised the plan does not have other language that covers those employed at the initial effective date of the plan.

July 31, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.79 5.79 Aa 6.08 5.95 6.02 A 6.29 6.27 6.28 Baa 6.52 6.82 6.67 Avg 6.30 6.21 6.26 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.89 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.94 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 5.14 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 298.3 Yield: 3.56 New Dividend: 10.61

Maybe the participant made a mistake. Maybe not. Good advice from PIP and Bird. But this might also be an opportunity to review the "navigability" of the website.

Could be someone used the wrong EIN on one or more forms. Could be that an illegal, working for your client, used a phony SSN that just happened to belong to someone else, and that illegal later became a VT.

Very likely this is related to identity theft, or more precisely, the use of real SSNs by illegals.

Why bother doing the legwork for the participant? Assuming you represent the plan and/or the TPA, perhaps you could tell the participant that you will reviewing the draft, not providing the "how".

Anyone can get them because they are taken from the actual filings (remember that only the Schedules E and SSA are not public information). The DOL does not post such 5500 information. FreeERISA.com does the legwork to gather the data, and post it. If they post only two years information (usually), that is part of their business model. They may charge for older information, but it was available free sometime in the past, or you can go to the DOL and look it up.

This sounds like an opportunity for some good employee communication.

The FASB has stated their intention to issue a final standard "by September 2006." http://www.fasb.org/draft/ed_pension&p...ement_plans.pdf Likely, they are on course for that schedule.

I agree with PIP.