david rigby

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.

If you want to hold down the cost, then why not merely exclude employees with one year of service? (This also can save some PBGC premiums, assuming the sponsor is covered.) The purpose of the funding method (and assumptions) is not to manipulate the cost. If the cost is "too high", then the benefit promised by the Plan is "too high".

That must really hurt, coming from a fish.

DOL: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/ Search for the term "settlor expense"

I don't disagree with Blinky's suggestion to use only the rate in effect at the end point, but alternatives may be reasonable. In this case, determining the 7/1/05 AE value by using 6 monthly rates might be a reasonable interpretation, but not a practical one. This may be an opportunity to develop a new administrative practice (and put it in writing).

Right. And upon further reflection, I suggest it is not a reasonable funding method if it recognizes such demographic changes after the valuation date. Since this is 2003, you have already filed the Schedule B, so changing the valuation date will not be possible. I wonder what is really going on here: is someone trying to "manipulate" the cost by ignoring plan participants who will not vest? If so, why not do the same thing with the turnover assumption?

Hold on. In my profession, it is well-established that all clients should have a DB plan.

Seems inconsistent to me. For example, were all 2003 terms excluded, or only non-vested ones? What about someone who terminated on 12/31/03? - If you are ignoring all terms, that sounds to me like an EOY valuation date. - If you are ignoring only non-vested terms, that sounds like an assumption, which may be reasonable, but should be evaluated on that basis. BTW, there are circumstances where a valuation may use a 100% turnover decrement in year one, and this can be considered reasonable.

This prior discussion indicates the use of W-2, but a review of the instructions would tell you if any procedures have since changed (not likely, but such review never hurts). http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15273

That link has been included in several prior posts, but it is not necessarily updated as soon as possible. It also shows only one month-end rate.

Just in case you had not noticed, on June 6, 2005, the Moody's Aa rates dropped below 5%: MOODY'S DAILY LONG-TERM CORPORATE BOND YIELD AVERAGES Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 4.92 4.92 Aa 4.99 4.95 4.97 A 5.35 5.21 5.28 Baa 5.63 5.93 5.78 Avg 5.32 5.25 5.29 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 3.64 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 3.83 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.25 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 270.1 Yield: 3.74 New Dividend: 10.10

Possible that this discussion (noting the difference between coverage and discrimination) will be helpful. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28805

Slow down a bit. Just because the employer "wants to terminate the plan" does not give anyone 100% vesting. (Agreed, it may not be relevant to the original question.) But why did the ER make any contribution to the plan for an employee who was not a participant? Was it deducted? Perhaps IRC 404 was violated? "...can the $3200 be refunded to the employer?" Be very careful about this. What does the plan say?

Read, re-read, and ponder well mbozek's response. But more generically, what part of "insider information" is unclear? If you asked this question of the SEC, what answer would you expect?

Where did the money go? - Actual check? Who cashed/deposited it? That is who the Plan should make request of. - Direct deposit? Who else has access to the account? You get the idea.