david rigby

If the contribution is late, - it cannot be counted on either the Schedule B or the Schedule H/I; - if the omitted contribution creates a funding deficiency, an excise tax (see IRS Form 5330) will be required; - the deficiency becomes part of determining the next year's minimum required contribution (a negative credti balance, as stated by Effen). In addition to the caution about the AFR/DRC, be careful about the quarterly contribution requirement for the current year.

You may have answered your own question. Plan definition, as long as it meets the minimum requirements of the law, is the controlling reference. So, determine - what is the exact defintion, - what is the exact date of participation, and - what is the exact date of termination of employment.

12/30/2005 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.26 5.26 Aa 5.46 5.35 5.41 A 5.69 5.78 5.74 Baa 6.03 6.38 6.21 Avg 5.73 5.69 5.71 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.36 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.38 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.58 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 285.9 Yield: 3.75 New Dividend: 10.72

Just my opinion, but I don't think your remarriage has any automatic impact on a QDRO. See http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=18822 The cost of hiring an attorney to get this QDRO removed (may not be the correct legal term) is just one of the costs of getting remarried.

Or the source: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96450,00.html http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=123229,00.html

Read everything here: http://www.pbgc.gov/practitioners/plan-ter.../page13261.html

Never seen one, but I think a one day plan year is permitted. Be careful about eligibility and discrimination testing. Be especially mindful of vesting, since you will (effectively) have to provide a year of vesting service for the short year. For other examples, try the Search feature, with a key phrase of "short plan year".

Somewhere in the original question is the unspoken thought of "QDRO". QDROs apply to qualifed plans, not IRAs.

Time to talk to legal counsel.

Uhh, perhaps you should seek additional legal advice. It is the court that issues a DRO, qualified or otherwise.

A few prior discussions on this topic. Try a Search using "good faith bargaining" as keyword. Probably, this will come back to your cited regulation.

Hahahahahaha. Take the advice from vebaguru.

In addtion to the above comments, please note the original post (both title and first sentence) indicate a merger of plans. However, the body of the post also states merger of companies. Clarity is useful. Perhaps both events are happening, but it would be hasty to assume that, especially on these Message Boards. Even so, they need not happen simultaneously. As QDROphile notes, first look to the terms of the documents. Possibly, the documents of the company merger will state the intent of the parties, and then the documents of the plan merger will follow.

Terminology is important. The original post mentioned a spinoff of a company, not a plan. Spinning off a plan may avoid such issues as a partial termination. Not a certainty, but this issue is more likely in a company spinoff. This may be significant enough to encourage a plan spinoff first. ERISA legal advisor will be able to provide assistance.

11/30/05 MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.42 5.42 Aa 5.57 5.48 5.53 A 5.85 5.77 5.81 Baa 6.18 6.57 6.38 Avg 5.87 5.81 5.84 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 4.40 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.49 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.76 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 281.7 Yield: 3.81 New Dividend: 10.72

Grammar notwithstanding, QDROs do not apply to governmental plans. A QDRO, or a DRO in this case, applies to the spousal support, child support, etc. It does not have any bearing on an employment relationship.

Discussed several times here previously. Do a search on the Message Boards, using the word "fraud" or "sham". Take the high road, and don't have anything to do with sham terminations, or any other type of fraud.

What is meant by "deferred compensation" in this context? Are you saying that the qualified 401(k) plan covers non-qualifed deferred comp?

Is there a "substantial" likelihood of discovering prior "intentional misconduct or gross neglect"? (This may or may not be only a rhetorical question.)

Probably obvious, but one way to help narrow this down, at least with respect to the AL, is match the inactive participants first. BTW, if FAS87 is applicable, I suggest you spend some time trying to match these values as well.

Are you the actuary? If so, "you" are not changing the measurement date. To see some discussion on this topic, read this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20854 I agree that the NPPC should be 12 months, assuming it applies to a company financial statement that covers 12 months. It is unclear from your phrasing and dates exactly which 12 months are in question. Are you saying that you previously calculated the CY2005 NPPC at 12/31/04, and are now calculating the CY2006 NPPC at 9/30/05? If not, please elaborate. If so, are you using the same census data in both? What asset value are you using?

Not quite, but the net effect is about the same. I suggest your best source of information is your friendly neighborhood Enrolled Actuary.

Attorney has asked me for recommendation(s) for an EA to assist in a QDRO. Attorney represents the employee. In addition to more than one qualified plan, there may be multiple non-qualified plans for which a PV is desired. (Employee/participant is an executive in a large co.) Attorney indicates high likelihood that the EA may also be needed in court testimony. Hence, I suggested that the attorney should engage someone with substantial experience in this area. I don't want to touch this, but am willing to provide attorney with 2-3 referrals. However, I don't know any such specialists, or how to search for them. Any suggestions? Attorney is in NC (not sure where the employee resides).

I also would be concerned with a variation of 10%. To be fair, you said "less than 10%", but did not elaborate. Assuming you have a copy of the plan document to follow, you probably have two primary things to review for closer matching: (1) data, and (2) assumptions. It would not surprise me if its both.

Blinky! Ziggy_112405.htm