david rigby

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".

That is the central question.Any interest in safe harbor?

There's a good phrase.

Likely, you will need an attorney. Make sure he/she is well-acquainted with QDROs. If you need some background, this is a good beginning: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html

Several references at this search location: http://benefitslink.com/search/results.php...=&stopDate=

Several law firms also have newsletters. For example, http://www.mcguirewoods.com/

Asks to be covered? Seems undesirable from the sponsor's viewpoint. Also, I doubt it is possible, due to statutory language. Besides, isn't that a perfect example of anti-selection?

Remember that late is late, even if the interest penalty is zero.

No. More specifically, it is not satisfied by the due date.

August 31, 2006 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.54 5.54 Aa 5.84 5.70 5.77 A 6.07 6.06 6.07 Baa 6.31 6.63 6.47 Avg 6.07 5.98 6.03 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.66 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.72 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.92 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 314.1 Yield: 3.51 New Dividend: 11.03

But be careful. Effen is correct that many documents define a beneficiary if there is no affirmative election, but sometimes that definition will include a priority of others (spouse, children, parents, siblings, etc.) before using "estate". Thus, don't rely on the default.

I agree that it was, and still is, EOY. But the IRS has the last word, eventually.

Is the value of the benefit more than $5000? If so, distribution timing is at the option (generally) of the EE. But, you may be able to accomplish your goal by communicating with EES; in many plans that permit distribution while still employed, the average employee is not aware of that provision.

Don't look in the (a)(4) reg. Try the (a)-4 reg.

Hold on here. What is "subject to consent of the administrator"? Is this provision permissible? If not, the Plan may have some compliance issue(s). See IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-4, Q&A3. I wonder if other plan provisions might be out-of-date. Is the EE one of the 25 highest paid?

Is the plan subject to J&S requirements? What type of distribution? What does the plan say?

How about starting in this forum? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showforum=24

Huh?

AAIIIIEEEEE!

The PBGC will always need a bail-out, unless and until Congress realizes that pension plan terminations are not insurable events. They had the opportunity to freeze it, but they made it worse.