david rigby

Huh? If the accrued benefit is zero at BOY, but not at EOY, how does this give you "no funding"? Have I misunderstood your post?

Earlier related discussion http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28656

If your employees are geographically close, organizations such as health clubs, may be willing to offer "group rates".

To discuss, either positively or negatively, any mortality table, you must first know the development of that table: what data was used, what is the intended purpose of the table, etc. Find the document on the SOA website that does this. Read it carefully.

Although this is not my usual type of client, I thought the term cost is just that, the cost. Determine all liabilities; determine all assets. Combining them is what makes a funding method.

Is this recent discussion relevant to you? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29070

The best answer is: don't do it! However, one could refer to page 196 of Authur W. Anderson's excellent book "Pension Mathematics for Actuaries" (second edition). There may also be references in SOA exam study notes.

Are you sure the RMD applies? 5% owner?

It would seem not, at least with respect to accrued benefits. To do so would likely violate one or more existing plan provisions, not to mention 411(d)(6) concerns.

Because many plan sponsors have taken advantage of their ability to have expenses paid by the plan. If the plan participants pay this cost, then the last one standing will bear a significant cost.

Have you checked the yellow pages? http://benefitslink.com/yellowpages/

That is exactly what it means.

Sounds like a question to direct to the "Help" section of your software.

Is it really a change? Or is the term cost just zero? Are you changing an assumption? Look carefully. If you (I'm assuming you are the actuary) consider it a method change, then by all means, report it on the Schedule B. If it does not meet the conditions of Rev. Proc. 2000-40, then IRS approval would seem to be needed.

As stated many times, the least expensive route may be to award the 100% vesting. However, it may still be advisable to discuss with counsel what would be the best mechanism and timing for this.

Lien? Is this conclusion valid? My understanding is that a waiver application will specify the $ amount requested, which should include the amount of any interest penalty that accrues due to late quarterly contributions, if applicable. Don't over-analyze it.

Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ In the box, put hr2830, click the radio button for “Enter Bill Numberâ€. Click Search. At this link, you will find another link to a PDF document. BTW, the "printer friendly display" is 120+ pags, and the PDF document is 200+ pages.

Partial termination is always a facts and circumstances analysis. With the facts presented, I would conclude YES, but it is useful to remember that other facts could be relevant.

Yes, available to plan participants. No, not available to participants. Additional help can be found using the Search feature, especially using the keyword "public".

Missing from the above discussion is whether the "disappearing" plan has any problems, especially those that would cause an IRS or DOL auditor to be concerned. If so, making the plan "go away" will not make the problems go away. If this plan was "aqcuired", then the sponsor may have also acquired the problems withouth knowledge. The sponsor may wish to make sure it has done its own due diligence about this issue, and discuss with its ERISA counsel, before proceeding. The statement by Bird about "should have identical BRF" is a bit overdone. Consultation with counsel will show that amending either plan before merger may be a useful step in this process, depending on the provisions of both. Difficult to make that determination here without complete review of such provisions.

There have been some previous discussions on similar topics. For example: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25894

Have not looked recently, but recall that the instructions (or perhaps the PBGC regs) deal with this issue, and the Standard Termination can become something else, such as a Distress Term. A bankruptcy is just about the biggest red flag there is. Not sure if bankruptcy must be reported to participants, but a change in the termination process must be.

Did the Plan pay these expenses? The C is to report expenses paid by the plan, not by the plan sponsor.

I think you need some more facts. Have you read the Q&A's here on controlled groups? http://employerbook.hypermart.net/QATopic.html#C6 The question of Affiliated Service Group will also come up.

Everytime I went to math class, 57 was greater than 55.