david rigby

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.

Many plans (prior to recent regs on mandatory rollovers) do not pay to anyone who cannot be located. Merely a practical consideration when you know that the last known address of the former EE is no longer valid.

EBSA, not IRS. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html#2005

You can find previous discussions on orphan plans here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...highlite=orphan Here is a DOL Factsheet on orphan plans http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsorphanplans.html Also, try a BenefitsLink search for “orphan” http://benefitslink.com/search/

First bullet. I agree. Second bullet. I think so. Perhaps I'm so stupid that I just need more information. How about an example? BTW, what do you mean by "push back from the attorney"? Is the attorney blaming the messenger (you) for drawing attention to a plan provision that may conflict with the regs.?

It is my understanding that, for purposes of deriving the Normal Cost, any variation of the Agg or IA method should "adjust" the 412 assets for the Credit Balance. (The 412 assets also could differ from the 404 assets if there are non-deducted contributions.) The result is that the 412 NC will be greater than the 404 NC. However, the 412 contribution is then determined by subtracting the credit balance, producing a 412 contribution that is less than the 404 contribution. Ignoring any issues for AFC, interest on late quarterly contributions, full funding, etc. The Schedule B instructions for lines 1(b)(1) and 1(b)(2) state that no adjustment should be made for the Credit Balance. This is not defining the method, only the entry on the form. In general, the Schedule B is concerned only with 412, not 404.

Doesn't the 10% excise tax apply to non-deductible contributions, rather than non-deducted contributions?

There have been a few similar discussions here, although usually related to UK or Canada or France. You might use the Search (upper right of the page) feature to look. Try the key word "treaty". This IRS page shows some tax treaties: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations...d=96739,00.html

What is the funding method?

Other issues which may need more facts: - a company merger does not necessarily have any direct or immediate bearing on any plans. The assumption of a plan (that is, there is a new parent company) does not automatically change the plan or give anyone 100% vesting. - did the company merger automatically vest you in your 401(k) plan or was there some other action? The former is possible, but not necessarlly expected. For example, the merger agreement itself could address a vesting question for plan A but not plan B; if so, that is important information, both with respect to what is included and what is not included. - for either plan, were any involved in a plan merger? - how many were laid off (percent is more important than absolute number)? if over 20%, it may be a "partial termination", the effect of which is to give 100% vesting to any of those "affected participants". Perhaps you already know this, but it is very important to know whether there was a merger at all. For example, if the buyer bought a company via stock purchase ("lock, stock and barrel"), that is much different than if the buyer merely acquired assets of the seller.

Some good commentary on this topic: http://www.mhco.com/Commentary/2005/Record...uide_072105.htm

Oh, you mean about your question. Suggest that you will act at the direction of the plan's ERISA counsel. The TPA does not want to be making the decision.

Not according to IRS Reg. 1.411(d)(4).

Quite a few prior discussions on this topic. Use the Search feature. A key word of "partial" is suggested.

Not sure if this is of any significance: in the original post above, Blinky asks about two 50% owners. More than one of the responses refer to majority owners. In all my math classes, 50% was less than a majority. Anyone have any cites or other input?