david rigby

How about this to determine your UCL?

Correct. In other words, what does your plan permit with respect to timing and form of distribution? The plan will already define these chararteristics. It will be spelled out in the Summary Plan Description. Still have your copy? However, the "we don't do that" comment may be concerning. If you are currently eligible for a lump sum payment, and the plan administrator is declining to do it, then that is a different situation. Ask.

If your question refers to the participants who are already in B, the merger has no effect on them, so (presumably) there is no reason for them to make new elections. However, because mergers often involve "fund mapping", it may be that fund changes also occur at the merger date, thus impacting all participants.

More information needed.

Can you find authority to contradict it? Did the restated document alter in any way the definition of "beneficiary"? If so, was it substantive? If so, does that cause you to think existing designations would conflict with the document? Likely there is change in wording, but not necessarily in a significant way. Could this be an opportunity to ask plan participants to review beneficiary designations and update as needed?

Any help here? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26068

If the "discrepancy" is in the payroll function, why not fix it there?

Fees are negotiable.

Yep. Might be a bigger problem: the participants elected to defer a percent (perhaps because that's what the plan says?), while whoever designed the payroll information/deduction did so as a flat $ amount. Uh oh.

Not an answer to your question, but why not consider amending the plan(s) to remove the suspension requirement? This is especially useful if the retiree is rehired in a part-time status, or is otherwise not expected to accrue additional years of service.

The relationship of the original questioner and the school system is unclear. IANAL, but it seems likely the school system will want to get its own counsel to provide advice (which may be exactly the same as from b2kates).

IANAL, this situation appears to touch on many issues. Seems like the above advice is the correct suggestion. As TPA, you do not want to try to solve it. (Even if you could, very possible that you would not get paid for your time.)

Sure it sounds reasonable, but this is an administrative procedure. You need to follow that. (If you don't have such procedure, then this situation is the prompt to put it in writing.)

IANAL so I will not pretend to have any knowledge of Knudson. I wonder if there might be a middle ground: don't even attempt to recover "overpayments", but make sure all future payments are correct. One final thought: Verify whether the current spouse is the spouse at date of retirement.

Although possible, most plans are not worded to require spousal consent when the retiree elects a J&S greater than 50%. Review plan language carefully. You may still have concerns about documenting the election. w/r/t the original question about overpayment, you will need extraordinarily precise documentation that the wrong conversion factor was used, and what the correct factor should have been. Careful review of the plan as in effect at the date of retirement. BTW, why was it wrong? Incorrect spouse DOB perhaps? If so, plan administrative provisions may already include information about how/if/when to make adjustment. An error of this magnitude would cause me to be suspicious about every facet of the original benefit calculation.

IMHO, existing bases should continue, and you should establish a new base at 2004 if applicable. This is the only thing in the Gray Book: Gray Book Q&A 2004-1 Funding: Maintenance of OBRA Full Funding Bases With the repeal of the OBRA full funding limit, are there any special rules for handling the amortization of any existing OBRA full funding limit amortization bases in the 2004 valuation, or should they simply continue to be amortized over the remaining period(s)? RESPONSE There are no special rules. They should continue to be amortized over the remaining period(s) until they are fully amortized or wiped out by a full funding credit, whichever happens sooner. Copyright © 2004, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

I think the answer is the last sentence in Frank's response above.

You could be correct, but how it "seems" to you may have nothing to do with the law.

The Gray Book has two questions related to this issue: 1995-11 Funding -- Amortization Periods for Changes in 415 and 401(a)(17) Limits Apparently, the reduction in actuarial liability due to reduction in compensation limit to $150,000 should result in a separate 30-year amortization base (i.e., as a plan amendment). Similarly, future changes in Section 415 limits and compensation limits due to indexing apparently should also be treated as if plan amendments rather than as experience losses. Will the IRS consider allowing any of these changes to be treated as if they were actuarial gains/losses in order to simplify actuarial valuations? RESPONSE: The current position is that all changes in actuarial liabilities due to the section 401(a)(17) and 415 limits are to be treated as plan amendments, even the increases that automatically occur under a plan’s terms. Regarding the possibility of providing relief for prior practice, it was indicated that if any such relief were to be granted it would be covered in future regulations. ____________________________________________________________________________ Gray Book 2004-38 Other DB Plan Issues: Form 5500-Schedule R Amendment Line 8 of Form 5500 Schedule R asks “If this is a defined benefit pension plan, were any amendments adopted during this plan year that increased the value of benefits?” How should this box be completed if there were no amendments but the IRC 401(a)(17) limit and/or IRC 415 limit, which are incorporated in the plan by reference, increased? RESPONSE Line 8 should be checked “yes.” In effect, the plan was amended automatically by the increase in the limits. Copyright © 1995 and 2004, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale. ____________________________________________________________________________ It is likely many actuaries ignore one or both of these statements, reasoning that the amount is not worth the bother of a separate amendment base. A procedural comment: any amendment base, if any, will be a change in the unfunded AL. I doubt the resolution to this question differs among EA, PUC, FIL, UC, etc. However, from the GrayBook statements above, it seems unlikely the IRS would consider it a "reasonable method" to state that "no such base would be created." My guess at the IRS' opinion has nothing to do with whether other actuaries would consider it "reasonable."

If the company shuts down (goes out of business, not just loses the contract), then the plan will be automatically be deemed terminated (unless a successor sponsor exists).

You probably can have such investment and asssumption. However, since this is a DB plan, all assets are always available to pay any benefits of the plan. If you really need separate accounts, then you will need separate plans.

Perhaps this is behind the curve, but some states do not define "legally separated" and a couple can become legally separated merely by starting to live apart, without regard to a court or other agreement. Anyone?

More information needed. A standard termination may be possible if the majority owner(s) waive receipt of sufficient benefit to make it fully funded. For example, see this thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16104

I know of no requirement that the same turnover table, or salary scale, or retirement rates, etc. must apply identically to all participants. You may have a perfect example where it is reasonable to vary one or more of these. After all, actuarial assumptions must be reasonable to that specific plan and participant group.

When rehired, was the benefit suspended?