david rigby

The answer is found in IRC 416. There is an explicit statement in section 416©(2)(B) referring to the maximum DC allocation to Key EEs. There is no parallel reference in 416©(1) for DB plans.

No, that would be considered "integrated" or "permitted disparity". Your example fails the safe harbor for permitted disparity, so it could then be tested under the General Test, on a benefits on contribution basis.

IMHO, the contributions on Schedules B and I (or H) need not agree, but should be reconciled. In this case, it appears you want to record an accrued contribution on the I but not on the B. Is that correct? All my experience is with the opposite situation. To dig deeper, perhaps there is value in review of the instructions for the I/H. There may be practical reasons why a sponsor will take the position that they will record a contribution for the current year even if it could be recorded for the prior year.

An earlier discussion on this topic: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29366

So what? There may have been a curtailment at the time of the freeze (not necessarily), but that does not appear to be relevant to your initial question.

Hmmm. No hours but a W-2. If I had any of the other 62%, I might wonder why the company is paying FICA tax on consulting work, which does not appear to be "wages" subject to FICA. Is this "employee" an eligible participant?

FAS88! No way. Did they explain why?

Perhaps. If the facts presented are all accurate, then Effen is correct. (There may be other facts not yet in evidence.) The suggestion to discuss with your client is important, because only the client (not the new actuary) has a "beef" with the prior actuary. However, the new actuary may see an ABCD issue. In such case, it is essential that you bring this to the attention of the prior actuary, quickly. You can adopt a version of the Aggregate (or IA) method, and the problem goes away, prospectively, but does not deal with prior problems. It may not be in your best interest to adopt the Aggregate method, since that starts your 5-year clock. BTW, you state a "4 year clock". Rev. Proc. 2000-40 indicates 5 consecutive plan years.

Likely the "old plan" will state that vesting is determined under the terms of the plan as of the event date (death, retirement, disability, severance, etc.). Later plan provisions probably will not impact prior participants unless the plan change includes a retroactive effective date or other specific coverage. In addition, many plan amendments will include language noting that its provisions apply to participants who have at least one hour of service after date X. So, what does your plan say?

Polling this question is not relevant. Do you have an attorney?

What kind of plan is this? See 5500 instructions and forms here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html See the "What to File" section beginning on page 7. Note the "Caution" items in this section.

I think that optional form is available, with proper spousal consent. Funding for a particular form of payment is part of the actuarial assumptions.

Could we all just elect Florida or Texas?

Instructions for 5500EZ here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2004-5500-ez-inst.pdf See page 1.

Sort of. - Many DC plans allow EE contributions, but they are usually 401(k)-type deferrals (pre-tax). After-tax contributions are permitted but not very common. - DB plans rarely permit EE contributions of any type, primarily due to difficult administrative burdens. There is a significant exception in government-sponsored DB plans, since such organizations can generally utilize tax code provisions that allow pre-tax contributions.

Just a few thoughts, in no particular order: - What kind of plan is this? - What is the basis on which the payments commenced? (retirement, age 70+, etc.) - Is this an HCE or former HCE? - Does the plan have any provision which permits the participant to give "instructions to stop her pension payments"? - Does this plan really have an "account" for the participant?

This may be one of the relevant prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29380

Does the plan have a hardship provision? If not, is the ER willing to add it?

Or the plan sponsor says "ouch" to the law firm, and see if a lower fee is available. Or look for another law firm. Or pay it.

Talk to your client!

Or maybe the EE thinks the H stands for Hooky.

It is my understanding that this is the primary reason for a "permanent separation", and hence the reason for the reference to "legally separated" in the quoted Q&A.

As we all know, one contributing factor in the decline of DB plans is the lack of understanding/appreciation by the individual participant. Since most actuaries are keenly aware of this, and since many of us have a hand in producing a yearly “pension statement”, I suggest we consider how that statement can improve employee understanding and appreciation. Thus, I suggest using existing materials as a vehicle for this improvement. Specifically, when you produce a statement that shows a benefit projected to NRD, I suggest including a short message on every Statement. This can also be expanded to the production of benefit calculations and estimates. The purpose is a simple method to alert the recipient to the value of the benefit. For example: "The plan benefit is payable for your lifetime. You cannot outlive your pension income. Looking at this another way, if you receive the projected pension benefit for 20 years, you will receive a total of $xxx,000 from the Plan." Comments? Suggestions?

It is my understanding that those whose 2005 comp is > 95K will be HCEs for 2006. [iRC 414(q)(1), indexed, then rounded down to a 5K multiple.]

Possibly, Dell would be a source of good information. http://support.dell.com/