david rigby

It probably won't matter: all plans will be frozen and PBO=ABO.

My understanding of 412©(8) is to give permission to recognize retroactive plan amendments for purposes of determing plan funding. Amendments that could (possibly) reduce benefits are given special language in 2 sentences in the flush paragrah, but that does not imply that the entire section is only for such amendments. I conclude that nothing in this section would prohibit the proposed amendment, or prohibit recognizing the amendment to determine the minimum contribution. However, there might be a separate BRF issue under 401(a)(4).

Duplicate posting http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32739

If the short PY ends 06/30/06, then the subsequent 6 months is the "overlap" period. DOL Reg. 2530.203-2©(1). "...the first vesting computation period established under such amendment..."

Blinky, do you agree that supporting the other position would be difficult, algebraically? For example, think about the perspective of determining an amortization payment, rather than the simple process of rolling forward the CB. Determine that payment with two different interest rates?

I thought you used both 12-month periods. One YOS for the 1/1/06 thru 12/31/06, and 1 YOS for 7/1/06 thru 6/30/07, assuming the minimum hours requirement has been met. For purposes of participation service and vesting service. Benefit service could be defined otherwise. Of course, the plan could be more generous than the ERISA minimum.

Gray Book 2006-6 Funding: End of Year Valuation Dates A calendar year plan has a valuation date that is the last day of the plan year. If the valuation interest assumption is changed for the 12/31/2005 valuation, what interest rate is used to roll forward the credit balance and amortization bases from 12/31/2004: the 2004 interest rate or the 2005 interest rate? RESPONSE The 2005 interest rate is used. The change in interest rate applies for the entire plan year. 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. BTW, I agree with the IRS opinion here.

Try these prior discussions, for example: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30896 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29902 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29464

I agree. Also see Gray Book 02-9 Funding: Quarterly Contributions and Application of Credit Balance Plan A has a calendar-year plan year. For 2001, Plan A makes the entire minimum contribution on December 31, 2001. The resulting credit balance on that date is exactly zero. For 2002, Plan A owes a quarterly contribution of $50,000 each quarter. Plan A makes the first two contributions of $50,000 each on April 15, 2002 and July 15, 2002. If these were classified as 2002 contributions (on the 2002 Schedule B), they would exactly satisfy the first two quarterly contribution requirements. However, suppose the actuary reports these two contributions on the 2001 Schedule B as 2001 plan year contributions. Plan A will now report a $100,000 credit balance as of December 31, 2001, which can be used to satisfy the first two quarterly contributions for 2002. In particular, under Q&A-12 of Notice 89-52, the credit balance and interest thereon can be used to satisfy subsequent quarterly contributions once the prior year contributions have been made to generate the credit balance. What is the next quarterly contribution amount due on October 15, 2002, assuming a valuation interest rate of 8%? RESPONSE $46,651. On April 15, 2002, per Notice 89-52, contributions for the prior plan year made by that date can be reflected in the credit balance. Therefore, on April 15, 2002, Plan A has a $50,000 credit balance, effective December 31, 2001. This credit balance is increased with interest to $51,135 on April 15, 2002, and $50,000 of it is used to satisfy the quarterly due. On July 15, 2002, another $50,000 worth of credit balance is created, effective December 31, 2001. This credit balance is increased with interest to $52,128 on July 15, 2002, and $50,000 is used to satisfy the quarterly due. The remaining credit balances of $1,135 on April 15, 2002 and $2,128 on July 15, 2002 are increased with interest to $3,349 on October 15, 2002. Therefore, Plan A must deposit only an additional $46,651 on October 15, 2002 to satisfy the next quarterly due. 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.

Not in my house!

Maybe not. JohnG and PIP gave good advice w/r/t IRS Publication 590. You can see it here http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/lists/0,,id=97819,00.html or order your own copy by calling 1-800-TAX-FORM.

If you look closely, you may find that most plans covering a "couple of people" will have a husband and wife. Likely, the point of defining the normal form as a J&S is to create an "impact on optional forms," especially the lump sum. But I'm jsut guessing.

OK, I'll buy that. I did not mean to offend or be condescending.

What does this have to do with a forum titled "Blaze SSI"? The individual should begin the search for information at The SSA website

June 29, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.98 5.98 Aa 6.26 6.15 6.21 A 6.51 6.48 6.50 Baa 6.75 7.06 6.91 Avg 6.51 6.42 6.47 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 5.14 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 5.19 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 5.36 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 285.2 Yield: 3.72 New Dividend: 10.60 To the best of my knowledge, Moody's never posted any June 30, 2006 information. If you have information otherwise, please post.

...if the plan is subject to IRC 411.

If you are looking for more "reading material", try this forum: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showforum=89 If you are the participant, and if your attorney does not know the term "qualified domestic relations order", find one who does.

I agree with Effen's points. If a union plan is "stand alone", it is very unlikely that any changes are permitted without negotiation. The "dwindling" comment may also be a red flag, at least with respect to long term prospects for getting the plan(s) fully funded. Does the sponsor have a plan for doing so? expect to have the money? The sponsor's negotation position with respect to one union may be enhanced, but diminished with respect to another union. (Another example of why the ABO/PVAB should be fully funded at all times! OK, I'll get down off my soapbox.) If the plans do not have the same plan year, merging will probably mean giving someone extra vesting and/or credited service for a short plan year. You may also wish to review the "pension reform" proposals to consider what could happen in 2007 and beyond.

What do you mean "allocation"? Did anything happen between 09/15/05 and 03/15/06? Anyone paid out? If not, do you have a problem? What does the plan say?

Don't assume Congress won't make retroactive changes. Remember MPPAA (1980)? Even if there are retroactive changes, there may be "grandfathering", but sometimes that is defined based, not on the date of passage of the law, but the date a particular provision is added to the draft legislation. Possibly, the plan sponsor will want advice from competent ERISA counsel.

Gray Book 2002-14 Method Change: Automatic Approval for Plan in Effect for Fewer than Five Years Section 6.02(3) of Rev. Proc. 2000-40 denies automatic approval for any of the funding method changes listed in Section 3 of the Rev. Proc. if a change to the same aspect of the funding method occurred during any of the prior four plan years. May a plan that has been in effect for fewer than five years change funding methods pursuant to Section 3 of Rev. Proc. 2000-40? RESPONSE In general, yes. The initial adoption of a funding method upon the establishment of a plan does not count as a funding method change. However, if the plan is a continuation of another plan that was created as a result of a non-de minimis spin-off, you must consider the funding method history of the predecessor plan in determining whether or not the four-year rule is satisfied. A plan that is created as a result of a de minimis spin-off is considered a newly established plan. See section 3.03 of Rev. Proc. 2000-41. 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.

Often it is overkill to post long items such as these, since the original can easily be found with a link. In case readers are not aware, one of the many benefits (pun intended) of this website is the organization by topic. For example, 403(b) here: http://benefitslink.com/buzz/subjects/head.../403bplans.html

Correct, but the IRS presumes all terminations are involuntary unless proven otherwise. There are a signigicant number of prior discussion threads on partial terminations, which are recommended reading.

Hey Kirk! That hurts, coming from a lawyer.

Possibly the plan administrator is "holding" your husband's pension as an acknowledgement of a pending QDRO. This is not permanent but ususally gives the ex-wife some reasonable time to complete the QDRO process. This may be included in the plan administrator's written QDRO procedures.