david rigby

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.

Huh? Some other thoughts, in no particular order: - Anyone considering a rollover? - What is the point of terminating? - Why was Dad's account (or part of it) "distributed"? Did that conform to the terms of the plan?

I doubt that is true, but why not "fix the problem" by having a will?

In other words, it is an issue of proper plan drafting. Qdro is correct: several prior discussion threads on this topic. Try the Search feature.

Documentation is important for the reviewer as well as the sponsor. Merely stating a change of thinking is not enough; support is needed.

Ah, there's the rub! Determining the "before" AL and/or the MVA will require you to make some "adjustments", such as adding back in some (but not all) payments. Awfully tempting to change to Aggregate (but as you state, not available here, unless you request IRS approval). I agree with Effen that the defintions and structure of IRC 412 (et al) will direct that you create a base, unless you can demonstrate that it is de minimus. Not usually, but it is OK to ask yourself that question. However, my understanding of 412 is that you should use the Unfunded AL. Perhaps Effen was just using shorthand. If you did a window 8-10 years ago, you probably found out that windows work very well in a plan with surplus assets; if you are really fortunate, it will have full funding, and you won't care what the base is. But I digress. Technique (1) might define the AL and assets on a "before" basis by assuming all such employees did not sever employment. Thus, you will determine the assets by adding back all payments actually made to those participants (use your judgment about an interest adjustment, but I would be skeptical about that). Second, you will have to calculate liability by reversing all the retirements and make each one an active employee; that probably means you must impute a full year's pay. (Kind of makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it?) After these machinations, you must then review the result, ie, use your actuarial common sense. If it does not work, then try technique (2): same as (1) but assume all affected employees retired/terminated without the window provisions. This technique is a bit simpler, mostly adjustment to the assets without adjustment to the census data. Alternatively, perhaps you think (2) should be tried first. And maybe you're right.

Not sure if there is significant difference between (a) and (b), but I think © would be to assume the EEs did not sever employment at all. But what is the correct answer? For example, it is never EAN-AL of A minus B. The proper formula is EAN-UAL(A) minus EAN-UAL(B). The difficulty is that (B) requires you to measure the liability under one of (a), (b), or © as above (easy enough), and to measure the assets at the same date, but that asset amount is hypothetical because it assumes different benefit payments than the actual pattern. How do actuaries solve this problem? Verrrrry carefully. Often, it depends on convenience: you may have to "wing it", or hope that there is no significant difference among the various choices. In my own history, I usually choose whatever is the simplest to calculate, usually because it is not significant to the plan as a whole. BTW, I think (but am not absolutely sure) that FAS87 would tend to focus on option (a).

Liability? To whom? If the deposits have been tardy, the regulators will not care who filled out the 5500. They will care who signed it, but even more important, they will care about facts; you know, such details as whether the deposits were really late. It is the task of the sponsor/plan administrator (not the TPA) to make the deposits and keep a record.

Under PFEA (that is, only for plan years beginning in 2004 and 2005, unless extended). the CL rate for 404 purposes may be within the range as defined pre-PFEA. At least in this case, size does not matter.

So you are saying that is "enough" to encourage further investigation. OK. A very good clue, at least to get someone asking more questions, such as "what happened on those two dates?" IMHO, no. While someone is asking about the relevant facts and circumstances, someone should also be reviewing prior inconsistencies. In other words, find out what is the correct information.

I think you are being hasty to reach any conclusion. Recall that partial terminations arise from involuntary severance of employment. Where there is a possible partial termination, the IRS presumes all are involuntary, but then the sponsor has the ability to demonstrate otherwise. It cannot be stated too strongly: facts and circumstances. A recent discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30273 Another concern is: how much? That is, will it cost more to analyze the issue than to provide the 100% vesting?

I agree.

I agree with PIP, except that "... IRS defines significant as more than 20% of the participants" may be a bit too precise. Certainly that is the dominant guideline, but partial terminations are always evaluated with respect to facts and circumstances. BTW, there are several prior (and useful) discussions on partial terminations, which can be found by using the Search feature.

2004?

Why? If the trustee believes a commission will be paid whenever the property is sold, why not value it at what the plan is expected to receive? BTW, why does a PS plan a majority of its assets in real estate? Prudent?