david rigby

Effen is correct. The participant should get out and read his SPD. (He did save it, didn't he?)

Net return, not gross. Safety of the investment itself.

After re-reading (and paying attention to the absolute value function), I agree with Ron.

Reasonable? Probably. Under Rev.Proc. 2000-40? I don't think it would be considered one of the pre-approved methods, but may not have difficulty being approved under Rev.Proc. 2000-41.

To what allowable exclusion are you referring? Don't forget that IRC 410 exclusion refers to a CBA and requires that retirement benefits are the subject of good faith bargaining. Mere presence of a union is not the same. There have been several prior discussion threads related to this topic.

I agree. There may be other discussions besides this one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30007

Maybe. Documentation is the key. How do you know it is a partial termination? Write it down. A plan amendment may be a desirable part of the documentation.

No. Yes. No.

Interesting, but I suspect the original Q was contemplating a different type of load. The response to that may be the usual "it depends." What type of load is the actuary currently using? If it is a common technique of adding $X or Y% to the contribution, then that probably is not part of CL or PBGC liability, and is often expressed as a load to the NC, not a load to the AL or PVAB.

I agree with Frank and mwyatt. To complete the documentation, I called Jim Holland this morning. His response was essentially the same: "It depends". Specifically, it depends on whether the suspension notice is given. If no notice, then failure to apply the actuarial increase would be an impermissible forfeiture of benefits.

Elevating this question, anyone have an opinon, or cite, on the question of how a plan freeze affects the "actuarial increase" provision? (I found nothing in the ERISA Outline Book, and nothing in the Gray Book.)

Three?

Check out Rev. Proc. 2000-40.

As Effen was pointing out, and you may have noticed, just being in a collective bargaining unit is not enough for the 410(b) exclusion. In addition, bargaining for some benefits is not the same as bargaining for all benefits.

I agree with Effen. However, be careful about the reference to waiver by a majority owner. This is a concept meaningful only to a PBGC covered plan. In that case, the waiver takes place at the end; that is, the majority owner agrees to accept less than a 100% distribution. The IRS does not like this, but ignores it. When the plan is not PBGC covered, there appears to be no provision to do the same. For other discussion, use the Search feature, keyword "majority owner".

No expert I, but it may turn on the plan provisions. BTW, in your (3), I don't think any 2005 terminated employee can have a BIS in November 2005, since a BIS probably does not occur until the plan year is complete.

While I agree with Kirk's desire for a spell-check feature, there may be other ways in which we would like to see messages "corrected" before posting.

Where are you located? Size of the plan? Please e-mail me directly if you have specifics.

Nothing? Perhaps they made a profit? After all, why should you complain about Steinbrenner spending his own money? (I don't care either.)

Yes. An attorney. This subject is not for amateurs. Don't mess around with them.

Try this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16641

Have you considered a merge between spreadsheet and a word processing template?

Yes.

If the plan is like most (unless the plan was amended to lower the mandatory payout limit), you must distribute the benefit, first by offering the choice of a cash payment or a rollover, and then (when the participant does not respond) do the rollover.

I believe that the definition of NRA in IRC 411 is for purposes of 411, and does not restrict your definition of NRD in the plan. However, discrimination testing and safe harbor issues may be another matter.