david rigby

Some prior discussion (there may be others, feel free to use the Search feature): http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22510 There is no provision for the PBGC to provide a benefit higher than the PBGC maximum. Delta is just one of many sad examples where the plan sponsor (in this case, in collusion with the pilots' union) promised more than it could pay for, effectively requiring future management and/or employees and/or customers and/or profits to be responsible for it.PBGC has some very good reading here.

1. See what Kirk said.

The first rule of 401(k)'s (some would say the first rule of investing) is to contribute whatever percent (could be a dollar amount, but usually expressed as a percent) will generate a matching contribution by your employer. For example, if your employer matches 50% of your first 5%, then you should contribute (at least) 5%. Think of that as an automatic 50% earning on your investment.

A written document specifying the terms of eligibility, vesting, what type(s) of contributions to the plan are permitted, when and how benefits are payable from the plan, etc. In the US, qualified plans are required to have written document to incorporate its terms (limited exceptions). No plan is perfect, or complete, but a well-written plan is important for smooth and equitable administration. Another requirement of US pension law is that participants be given a "summary plan description". The SPD should be written in language that is understandable by the average participant, and should provide sufficient summary to understand its terms. If there is any primary advice from these Message Boards, it will be "read the SPD first".

If the plan is "safe-harbor" this may not apply.

Hmmm. You are probably divorced.

Might be hasty to arrive at that conclusion. If a contribution appears to be in excess of deductible limit, the first decision is whether anyone wants to try getting it back. - If not, review by the qualified actuary is in order to determine if it actually is non-deductible. - If so, review of plan provisions is in order.

It is doubtful that a check issued in 2002 will still be valid in 2004, at the time it was endorsed. Unclear if the anti-alienation provisions were violated. The plan sponsor may have accepted a "payment" that is worthless.

Are you referring to the codes found on page 9 of the 1099 instructions? http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099r.pdf

Recent discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27386

This sounds like someone either does not understand the NC, or is trying to manipulate something. If you have given them the 100K and 50K, that is the answer. Sure, you can apportion the total some other way, as SoCal suggests, but why would you?

Because that Google search did not produce a direct result. I'm shocked, shocked! The UP84 table can be found here, and is table number 831. Do your own setback. Assuming that "1994 Group Annuity Reserving Table projected to 2002" refers to the unisex table in Rev. Ruling 2001-62, find it here.

Try the links in this thread http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27582, except you can ignore a Google search.

Is that a double negative?

Since these Message Boards are authority (aren't they?), then we get to decide.

Size matters.

Until we hear more, let's call him a "consultant". Let him earn the removal of the quotes.

What does this mean?

WDIK, OK, but I am surprised. My experience was that no company wanted to sell one deferred annuity, although perhaps there was a minimum size in their requirements. In your situation, was the purchased annuity large (by whatever standards) or with a short deferral period?

Note that several places in ERISA and the IRC state that governmental plans are exempt, but must still comply with pre-ERISA IRC. See for example, IRC 411(e)(2).

To elaborate/consolidate above answers, you have to offer what the plan says, which is to provide the accrued benefit as defined in the plan. To do so would probably require that the plan purchase a (fully-paid) deferred annuity, which begins at the NRD and with all the plan's relevant provisions (early retirement, optional forms, QPSA, etc.). Most documents will also include a lump sum option upon plan termination, but it is not required. The reference to 417 above is to note the additional regulatory requirement that the offer of a lump sum must also include an immediate annuity as an option. On a practical note, you will not find an insurance company willing to sell a deferred annuity on an individual basis. Therefore, any EE who chooses the deferred annuity option may have to be given the equivalent immeidate annuity. As Blinky implies, this choice is unlikely, but I have seen it happen.

You need to renegotiate your fee?

I thought this kind of wrap worked the other direction.

Some of us are blocked from eBay by our company network. Can you post this as an attachment?

I make it a point to agree with MGB, especially when he is right, as now. Similar discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19190