david rigby

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 Merely a practical consideration when you know that the last known address of the former EE is no longer valid.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?

This may provide a start. http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2003-44.html See Appendix A.

Fix? If the benefit is payable as an annuity, you stop the payment, assuming the plan has the (very common) provision to do so. If a lump sum has already been paid, probably no action possible. Prevent? Ahh, there's the rub. If it were simple to do so, this discussion would not exist.

See IRS Reg. 1.404(a)-14©. Sorry, have not checked to see if there is more recent guidance.

All kidding aside, it is unlikely there is a single source of such information, that is both brief and useful as a synopsis. However, there may be several useful summaries in publications/books. Possibly one or more of the "Answer Book" series. Perhaps CCH or RIA or Irwin publishes a book containing a summary. Alternatively, if you have a particular question in mind, post it here and we will attempt to help.

Blinky and mbozek both make valid points, but neither solution is complete. 56K is a lot! Neither course of action should be taken until the sponsor has exhausted all remedies for searching. Since the participant could be deceased, this means searching for relatives. But let's not assume relatives will do the searching, since they may have no evidence to suggest a search is necessary, and the creation of an IRA will be useful (to participant and/or beneficiaries) only if someone knows about it There are many avenues for such searching, some suggested above, others may be discussed at the link above. So, why not focus on something useful: mbozek, assuming there is someone conscientious enough to do this search, can the account balance be used (within reason) to pay the cost of the search?

I don't care for the phrasing in your last question, but the answer is 80K. However, methinks there may be other facts not yet in evidence. Possible?

I'm shocked! Shocked!

No.

If you have not already done so, try the Search feature. I suggest using search terms such as "lost" or "missing participant".

Just guessing, but according to the terms of the loan?

Don't overlook any required minimum distributions from the 401(k) plan.