david rigby

It depends on what you mean by this. In general, a method must remain in effect for at least five years before you can go back to automatic approval for a change under Rev. Proc. 2000-40. However, the establishment of a new plan does not start that 5 year clock. If your reference to "in effect" means the plan's existence, then you can change the method. If you have not read the Revenue Procedure, it is important that you do so before further analysis. Find it here. Also recommended is a Search of this Message Board for additional discussions. BTW, if you get an "agree" from either Blinky or MGB, then feel comforted.

Correct. However, the plan may be able to demonstrate that it did provide such notice, in which case, your "damaged check" scenario may provide a better solution.

Go for it. If they reissue the check, presumably with a new date, use that to document your rollover. BTW, if you got a check, it should have had 20% federal income tax withholding. If so, it should identify the gross, the withholding, and the net. (Don't assume; verify.) You can rollover any amount up to the gross. State tax laws vary. www.irs.gov. Look for Publication 590.

See "When to File" on page 1. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5330.pdf

February 28, 2005: Moody’s Bond rates Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA, 5.35, 5.35 Aa 5.69, 5.48, 5.59 A 5.76, 5.56, 5.66 Baa 5.91, 5.98, 5.95 Avg 5.79, 5.59, 5.69 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 3.85 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 4.25 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.70

Not necessarily. The plan may use that definition, but it is not required.

How about getting advice from another attorney.

There have been many discussion threads that speak to this topic, so the Search feature may prove useful. IMHO, the answer should be one of practicality, with an eye toward the "big picture", and remembering the general ERISA principle of resolving ambiguities in favor of the participant. Precedent may also be useful. Here is one example that happened to me. Long ago (I won't tell you when), I started a new job on the first day of January. It was a Monday, either the 2nd or the 3rd. The PS plan had a one year waiting period. Next January 1, was I eligible to participate? The answer was determined by looking at my pay; the employer did not prorate my monthly salary for that first month, so they considered that I had begun work on January 1, and met the one-year requirement. Should the plan document address this? Maybe, but it seems more appropriate to include in the written procedures adopted by the administrative committee.

We'll assume you don't really mean the "trustee", but the plan administrator (even if those two roles are filled by the same person, they have different responsibilities). The PA cannot impose anything, unless the plan authorizes it. Not likely. But perhaps the plan already defines a limit for HCE deferrals?

Why not? Why not make sure the total is correct in all cases, not just for 401(a)(17)? What does the Plan say?

mbozek makes a valid point, noted many times on these Boards. However, there may be several valid reasons for terminating rather than merging. Among the most important is that the buyer may want to ensure that his (current) plan is not "tainted" by any potential mistakes/wrong-doing in the other plan, including with respect to plan design, administration, trustee, fiduciary issues, etc. However, back to the original post. The plan is not being sold, the plan sponsor is. If there is a 100% stock purchase, then the plan "goes with it". Even if terminated prior to the sale, unless the buy/sell agreement makes clear that a surviving organization will continue to exist and will have all responsibility for the termination. Let's be clear: is that what is happening? If terminating, then "follow the rules" is good advice. If a plan is terminating, then you don't have to worry about "forcing out" the former employees' accounts: they have to be distributed, just like all other participants. The plan provisions will already say this. Since the buyer is terminating the employment of (at least) one trustee, the buyer should be prepared to install a substitute trustee immediately, so that the "chain of command" is clear throughout the termination process.

What about those who post links to sports-related comments?

Does it matter what a beneficiary form says? Maybe, but likely it is more important to determine what the Plan says.

Several related prior discussions. See this one first, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27946 and use the Search feature to find others. BTW, perhaps using the Unfunded Current Liability to define the upper bound of your contribution range will help.

Both answers look good. Note that you already answered your own question (sort of) by observing the equation of balance. Simply put, it must balance.

Before further analysis, what does the plan say about death benefits? definition of beneficiary?

Methinks there is a problem with either - interpretation of plan provisions, or - plan provisions.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2003-3.html

Apples and oranges. If the plan has been terminated, then it cannot be merged into something else. Why does it still have residual assets? Check plan provisions to see what should happen to the excess assets, and do that. But, I'm assuming all the participants have been distributed. If not, then address that first.

Interesting. No such experience. Is it possible that the "procedure" which produced the $75K does not use (ie, understand) the time value of money?

Several prior discussion threads on this topic, most of which contain my opinion that the assets at the first valuation date must be zero. However, since I rarely encounter EOY valuation dates, it's possible that my opinion is all wet. At any rate, try the Search feature. Likely, all such discussions will be in the DB message board. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17207

This is pretty muddy, but I'll venture an opinion (worth very little I have found). IMHO, it is advisable to deal with this question thru the plan's appeal procedures. Best to do so in wrtining. Let the participant and/or representatvie submit documentation that may support the request/claim for a different form of payment. This permits the Plan Administrator the opportunity to review the facts, and (if available) any prior precedent. Not to imply the PA has the ability to change the plan provisions, but it is the PA's job to interpret when ambiguities arise. Using the plan's appeal procedures also documents what was discussed, what facts were presented, and what reasoning was used to arrive at a conclusion.

Probably an issue to be determined by reference to plan provisions. What is the plan's definition of vesting service. (Most plans do not define service in weeks.)

Perhaps I am misreading something. Are you (both) saying that no services are "performed" until the birth occurs?

Sounds like a question that must be determined by reference to plan provisions, especially definitions. But I could be missing something.