david rigby

A recent discussion thread on the topic of recovering pension benefits paid after a retiree's death: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29610&hl= Use the Search feature to find others. For example, searching only in the DB forum with the keyword of "deceased" produced this list: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...ghlite=deceased Other forums and/or keywords may also be useful.

If the 1099 is correct, isn't this a simple matter of the plan sponsor applying an adjustment the next time it remits withholding amounts?

Perhaps my experience is limited, but change in control provisions seem to be common in publcily traded companies. However, they may not be as extensive as the provisions you mention. For example, sometimes they are only a vesting trigger. Where there is a "reassignment" provision, most have a time limit (such as 6 or 12 months). The wording of such provisions is not ambiguous.

Just a few of the "hits" when you Search using the keyword of "minor" http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2806 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19426 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15198 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28444 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=4344 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15793

Hold on here. What do you mean after tax withholding? BTW, are you referring to a deferral election that is a $ amount (rather than a percent)? If the former, the plan should already anticipate this (see, I'm not being sarcastic) by specifying what happens if the EE elects a deferral that is "too big". I suspect the real problem here is caused by "garnishments". Perhaps the EE elected a deferral, then received a garnishment? Maybe the solution is for the EE to reduce his deferral until the garnishment is completed. After all, the paycheck is finite.

I agree with stephen. Perhaps this will be another technological evolution. Express your preferences to as many firms as you can, maybe talking to the "office manager" as well as the individual broker. Be proactive about your suggestion; for example, would you prefer receving PDF copies e-mailed, or maybe you want it on a CD-rom, etc.

Isn't the definition related to "married" or "spouse"? (Spouses don't even have to live together.) What does the plan say?

The actions you describe may violate the spirit of those (or other) cites, if not the letter. However, in general, governmental plans are not subject to those rules. IMHO, your first action is to complain to the governor, then to your state legislative representatives. (But, they may be in cahoots.) Perhaps there is a kind newspaper editor who will provide some publicity for your cause.

Please help this non-attorney understand. Why would that request not be rejected merely under lawyer-client privilege?

Have you asked the brokerage firm(s)?

Do these plans cover the same employees? If so, why not merge them and have only one 5500 to worry about?

I agree. It may also be that there is a fiduciary duty to try to collect, no matter what your real-world expectation. Even if you think the chance is zilch for various reasons, you should send the letter because the next time it happens will have different circumstances.

Where on the Form 990 was this entered? BTW, just skimming the 990 and instructions, it appears to refer to cash contributions, not accounting expense.

Blinky's concern seems correct to me. After all, every amendment has (or should have) a statement that it will not reduce any participant's accrued benefit at the later of the effective date or the adoption date. But perhaps I misunderstand the intent of the amendment.

Before anyone goes to the ABCD, do well to remember that we are reading this (at least) second hand, so there is the possibility that some of the facts are not exactly as presented. On the other hand, send the actuary a link to this discussion thread and ask for his response.

I believe this is very common in small plans.

I agree with Effen.

It also does not apply to plans which are not covered by the PBGC.

IMHO, sort of. Those proposed amendments could be done, but they would (one hopes) contain the common language stating that the amendment will not reduce any participant's accrued benefit as of the later of the effective date or adoption date. Thus, no retroactive impact.

Just an opinion, but I would not use the extension form as the vehicle for communicating a changed EIN. Have you checked the 5500 instructions to see if they answer your question?

Hey folks. We forgot to congratulate, and thank, our intrepid webmaster. In April 2005, BenefitsLink became 10 years old! Attaboy Dave!

I don't see embezzlement as a Reportable Event. http://www.pbgc.gov/plan_admin/REPEVENA.htm Am I missing something?

Unfortunately, that ignores the very obvious responsibility that the participatn has to keep the plan administrator informed of address changes. The PA has to send SARs to the last known address, but where is the requirement that the PA go to the expense of following up every time that address is a dead end? Many companies provide a gentle reminder to their departing employees, "if you want the money, don't forget to keep us informed of your address."

Distributions upon plan termination are usually different than during ongoing operation. In the former case, the plan has to fully distribute the benefit somehow, so it will typically include a lump sum for everybody, at least as an option for those over the mandatopry cashout limit. But, you don't get to the PBGC Missing Participants program until you have done a search. BTW, that might mean it is worthwhile to do a search now.

Not me. I agree with the first part of SoCal's response. Let the attorney decide when/if/how to contact the DOL.