david rigby

I believe you will find that IRS Reg 1.411(d)-4 indicates that death benefits greater than the QPSA minimum are not protected and can be eliminated/reduced. (BTW, disability benefits are also in the "unprotected" category.) See Federal Register Vol.53, No.132, July 11, 1988.

You may want a copy of IRS Publication 575: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf Call 1-800-TAX-FORM

I second Mike's comments. It seems unlikely that any regulatory pronouncement can override the statute, and unlikely that the IRS would try to do so. Nor does 412(c )(8) seem to impact anything outside of 412.

If not located, consider the possibility that the individual is deceased. Then you have to look to the plan for beneficiary issues.

Or 3 year vesting schedule?

I agree with Texas_Acty.

PFEA added IRC 404(a)(1)(F): Having a brain freeze. When I review the "temporary" references in PFEA, I'm not sure the above 404 subsection is included. Any opinion about whether it expired at 12/31/05?

I think there is another item important to the amendment. Using LameDuck's example of a calendar plan year, the amendment must be adopted/signed no later than March 15, 2006, but it must also have an effective date during the 2005 plan year.

Correct. Can the ER contribute $200K? Yes. Can the ER deduct $200K? If the 404(a)(7) limit is $150K, then that is the maximum to deduct. Does the $500 forfeiture affect the deductible limit? No.

Hey you.

Is it mentioned in the SPD?

I have never seen this as a problem. Many examples where the 5500 is completed with unrounded amounts and the auditor statement shows rounded. A few vice versa.

What about the plan provisions? If convicted spouse is not the beneficiary under slayer statute, would not the plan provisions guide who is next in line? (Might not be the estate.) BTW, perhaps the plan's legal counsel should be consulted. Possibly counsel will suggest the plan "hold pending appeal", but also suggest the plan invest the account in something that is protected from market flcutuations. (I have no idea, just a thought.)

Janet, please note the parenthetical sentence.

For example, http://www.dor.state.nc.us/downloads/NC-4P.pdf NC W-4P instructions include the following: “NONPERIODIC DISTRIBUTIONS – 4% WITHHOLDING. Your payer must withhold a flat 4% from a nonperiodic distribution unless you choose not to have income tax withheld. A nonperiodic distribution means any distribution which is not a periodic payment. (The 4% is required on eligible rollover distributions and you cannot choose not to have income tax withheld from those distributions.) ….” Thanks for the information that Northern Trust is providing incorrect advice.

"Ah, feed the kitty with those premium increases." Don't get me started. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...ndpost&p=104851

I think the most important thing is credibility in the document, rather than the prior actuary. You say the DB document says one thing, but the prior actuary produces something else. Find out which is correct.

You may find value in these prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29283 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13240

A related earlier discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5211

Duplicate posting! http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31480&hl=

Most? Virtually all.

A few previous discussion threads on this topic, and we see that mjb is consistent in his opinion that such state statutes are pre-empted by ERISA. (My opinion on that is irrelevant.) What is relevant is the strong trend on the part of employers/plan sponsors to make sure they are not part of the "identity theft problem", and many are voluntarily finding ways to "mask" the social security number. This is a good thing, and should be encouraged.

Do you really want a reply, or is this just a rant? PBGC is probably not the only "gov'mint agency", but that may be irrelevant.

Plan with less than 10 lives. Submitted From 5310 in Oct 05. IRS requested more info first week of Jan 06. We were very surprised at that timeliness. (Not yet complete, but I expect no problems.)

Are you suggesting that the rate from 01/01/2006 to 09/15/2006 (for example, assuming a CY plan) would be different than the rate from 04/15/2005 to 12/31/2005? I'm not aware of that possibility.