david rigby

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?

My recollection is that the IRS has stated their goal is to get the release out within the first five business days of the month. If that is not exact, it is approximate. BTW, they do a good job of it.

Sure you can try the Federal Reserve, but it is never official until the IRS releases it. For example, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-05-67.pdf

No. You should use the turnover assumption in determining the EOY CL, but vesting is not relevant.

I also would lean toward suggestion 1. IMHO, suggestion 2 is not appropriate, unless it is clear in the document. If the document is like most, it will be silent on this, and Andy's comment about "reasonable" sounds good, remembering to "resolve in the participant's favor". This assumes you have carefully reviewed the language of FAE. I have seen many which specify something like "highest 5 consecutive years in which the participant earned a YOS, out of the last 10 consecutive years in which the participant earned a YOS."

Exactly right. Leevena, make sure you read the discusions in the links above, and then heed Q's admonition to get advice from a competent attorney who has experience in ERISA matters.

Is this a zebra? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8893 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12577 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19871

http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/exams-educa...nd-supplements/ Best starting point is the study notes and suggested texts. Although FM is not offered this fall, I strongly recommend the actuarial seminars at Georgia State University. http://www.rmi.gsu.edu/actuarial/profeduc/prosched_blank.htm

If an in-kind contribution is not permitted (except perhaps via PTE), then logically it follows that it cannot be included in the funding standard account. Have I misunderstood your question? BTW, you may find some discussion in prior threads, via the Search feature.

... and this will be confirmed by reading the terms of the plan.

The American Academy of Actuaries sponsors a program where an individual may be able to get some pro bono actuarial advice. (I doubt the actuary would be "negotiating".) http://www.actuary.org/palprogram.htm

Others may have statistics on this, but I understand that many employers require EEs to enroll in the "program", and if you don't elect anything then your coverage defaults to a plan that is ER paid, but with a very high deductible (sometimes referred to as "catastrophic").

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.