david rigby

Anyone hear anything about a major firm outsourcing some/most of its actuarial work?

8. Waste time. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31342&hl=

Any other plans?

For whom? Do buyer and seller want the same outcome? Need more facts.

See law (passed and signed I think) in December. Title was something like "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005". http://thomas.loc.gov/

If there are new facts, or new understanding of old facts, why not just re-submit the request? Might be more efficient than looking for other similar cases.

Remind me not to apply for a job there, or do business with that company.

Not sure it is that simple. I believe CB plans still had to be amended to comply. See original ERISA Sec. 211, especially subsection ©.

Some may say that you cannot merge a DC plan into a DB plan (or vice versa). I believe that is a misreading of IRC 414. However, it does appear that to do so, you must first treat the disappearing plan as if it were being terminated (and my statement may be an oversimplification). Thus, you have to vest the participant. If there is also a forfeiture account waiting for allocation, then allocate it . On a practical level, with only one affected participant, it seems the sponsor would gladly opt for the simplest approach. Other comments?

For most plans, the effective date was the first day of the plan year, beginning in 1976. But maybe you knew that. My career began in 1977, and I recall many plans without final documents then, perhaps as late as 1979. That is the best I recall.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31235&hl=

I think the regs address this issue. Did you check? I believe the short answer is that the "lookback" period should always include 12 months, but of course you should review the regulation for exact applicability. BTW, what does this have to do with "top heavy"?

What information? Be specific.

http://benefitslink.com/IRS/notice2006-8.pdf

5500 can be ordered from IRS (1-800-TAX-FORM) or the EBSA (1-800-998-7542).

Perhaps it is "wrong", but maybe you would be willing to share with us why you think so.

To increase the accuracy, shorten the sentence: "Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the lawmakers were aware."

IRS Table http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96461,00.html The SS wage base is the last line.

Interesting: http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?na...=article&sid=34 As stated before, one hopes the drafter of the QDRO will remember to address all cases involving death: - if the participant dies first and before any benefit commencement, - if the AP dies first and before any benefit commencement, - if the participant dies first after benefit commencement, and - if the AP dies first after benefit commencement.

How does one defer 100% of something that is subject to FICA?

What does the plan say? (Seems to the applicable to almost everything, doesn't it?) What kind of plan is this? Some, but not all DC plans (assuming that is applicable here), permit an Alternate Payee to elect immediate distribution.

"The attorney of the former employee produced an agreement...." Where is your attorney is this discussion? Heed the previous answers.

The advice from QDROphile is correct. If the plan sponsor wants to do something different, then a properly adopted amendment is the way to accomplish it.

Expanding on those answers, the annuity purchase is relevant to the Schedule SSA if the participant had been reported on a previous SSA (for example, as a VT participant).

It seems unlikely that the plan document will award vesting to those no longer employed. Perhaps a closer reading will reveal this.