david rigby

Careful examination of actual plan provisions will be needed for an exact answer. Probably, the result is that such designation will be invalid, as if it had never been made. Most plans will have a default definition of beneficiary in such case. If that default differs from your desire (assuming you are a plan participant), then you must make a valid designation in advance.

No doubt, this is where an attorney can help you. Some relevant issues might be here: http://employerbook.hypermart.net/QATopic.html

The weight changes when (IMHO, not if) it changes from "proposed" to "final".

I will be glad to offer my services to clients of this actuary. However, as Blinky notes, it is likely some facts are not yet in evidence.

Depends on timing, doesn't it? How long ago was it "terminated"?

Depends on your procedures. The proceudre I have seen is remove this EE now, then upon later termination, you follow your procedures and put him (along with all others in similar situation) on the SSA again, as appropriate.

Well, that may be another thing for the husband and wife (and their attorneys) to consider, but it most definitely is not a consideration for the plan administrator (or TPA or anyone else associated with plan administration).

Does the Plan pay it? It should include actuarial, legal, accounting fees, etc. Check the list on page 33 of http://www.dol.gov/EBSA/PDF/2004-5500inst.pdf

Have you Googled?

3. Does the DC plan already provide a contribution that meets the TH minimum? 4. Does the DC plan observe the TH vesting schedule?

Hmmm. That is one purpose of going to the IRS. Their definition of "significant" may be different from yours.

I've seen it done both ways. Just depends on other facts, and other items being negotiated. State law may already say something about this, but it may be a guide rather than a rule. QDROphile?

Let's be careful about apples and oranges. The link to the Maryland provisions, provided just above, discusses distributions eligible for rollover. "Eligible Rollover Distributions. TG §10-908 has also been amended to require a payor to withhold from a payment to a resident payee that is an eligible rollover distribution within the meaning of §3405© of the Internal Revenue Code and is subject to mandatory withholding of federal income tax, Maryland income tax equal to the sum of 3 percent and the top marginal state income tax rate for individuals under TG §10-105(a), which is currently 4.75 percent. This provision of the Act will take effect July 1, 2005." Thus, it is not referring to monthly pension payments. The Prudential link includes discussion about both types of payments. But the practical issue for the recipient is to make sure the state does not include a tax penalty for underwithholding. Thus, most plans will do as "E" has suggested. Mbozek may be correct about pre-emption, but no plan and no individual wants to go to court for that purpose.

Somebody needs an attorney for this advice. The employer/plan/TPA should not try to give such advice.

Keep looking. My take on this fee quote is that this CPA does not really want this business.

Maybe. First, look at the instructions for the Form 10 Advance (at above link), especially the definition of who is required to use it (non-public companies). Second, this sponsor needs legal reprensentation by someone who is familiar with both ERISA and bankruptcy.

That is what I would expect.

The FFC for 2004 will elimnate the Reconcilation Account for 2005. Assuming there was no FFC for 2003 (which seems unlikely), the 2004 Sch. B should have: Line 9q(1) should be 8,000,000 x (1+i). Line 9q(2) should be 50,000 x (1+i) + 100,000

Perhaps I misunderstand the question. Are you saying the plan is being asked to make a distribution not permitted by the plan provisions?

1. www.freeERISA.com may help. Older filings may be available for a fee. 2. Has a TPA been involved in any administrative functions, even if only for a short time? If only a brokerage, did that organization have a pre-GUST document?

Bankruptcy is a Reportable Event (that is, to the PBGC), with very limited waiver. See Form 10 and instructions. http://www.pbgc.gov/plan_admin/REPEVENA.htm

Some prior discussion on this topic can be found here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22461 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22024 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23970 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19730 Even if (in the opinon of the IRS) the owner in a one-person plan cannot "terminate", that still leaves a frozen plan. As discussed in the links above, the IRS expects that the method will be changed to UC in such case. That the actuary must then track experience gains/losses each year after that is merely the (administrative) price to pay. As always, maximize your contribution range, so that a larger deductible contribution will be possible (assuming the cash is available).

1. Please turn off your CapsLock key. All capital letters is the equivalent of shouting. 2. Get and read one of these: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf You can call 1-800-TAX-FORM to order a copy.

Maybe. See ERISA 407(a)(3) and 407©.

Will you accept Gray Book Q&A 2003-37 as “guidance”? 2003-37 DC Plans: Receivable Contribution and Top-Heavy Determination Q&A T-24 of the 416 regulations says that if a plan is not subject to 412, then the account balances are not “adjusted” to reflect a contribution made after the determination date. Most practitioners have taken this to mean that non-412 plans (profit-sharing) should not take into account contributions actually made after the end of the plan year, but that such receivables should be taken into account for 412 plans (money purchase) along with adjustments for waived contributions. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, what is supposed to be excluded? RESPONSE The term "account balance" in the regulations includes contributions credited to the account of a participant as of the determination date, not just the contributions actually made. This is the balance communicated to plan participants as opposed to a cash basis of accounting reflecting actual assets on hand at that date. The rule addressing adjustments to the account balance for contributions made after the determination date, applies to any waived funding deficiency that is not considered part of the participant's “account balance” until paid. Copyright © 2003, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.