david rigby

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.

Can? Sounds too ambiguous to be a plan definition.

I disagree (now there's a surprise). Just because the Unfunded FIL is amoritzed/wiped-out, does not mean you have the Aggregate method. What you have is governed by the definition of the method you are already using. -- You might still have FIL, with a zero unfunded, which behaves like the aggregate method (for example, your 412 normal cost will differ from the 404 normal cost if you have a Credit Balance). This is important because your unfunded can become non-zero through normal plan operation. (It may not be a good idea, but it can happen.) -- Alternatively, your FIL method definition could state that it will automatically revert to aggregate in this situation (which is a method change under 2000-40). But the method definition should already state this (yes, I acknowledge most definitions are silent on this). Back to the freeze question. The comment about automatic approval for UC is correct, but not quite strong enough. The IRS has stated "must change to UC", although I'm not aware of it in any official document. At any rate, IMHO, it is not worth fighting. Try a search on this message board (the DB one) for this issue. Several related prior discussion.

How much would you bid? OddEBay.pdf

Interesting comments. The actuaries in the bunch would probably agree with you in principle. However, even if you could use such gender distinctions, would you want to? Difficult to explain/defend/apply consistently? My recommendation is to use unisex factors, wherever you get them. IMHO, the funding assumptions are completely irrelevant to this issue.

Or you could just look at the clock.

Absolutely. www.benefitslink.com Seriously, there have been several discusison threads on this topic. Some will have specific referrals. Try the Search feature (upper right on your screen), using a keyword such as "missing" or "lost".

P.T. Barnum was wrong. It's every thirty seconds.

What is the prize? Better yet, what is the contest?

That is what I thought also, until Kirk added this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27027

What union?

It appears one partner wants more cash in hand. Does the plan have a mechanism that allows that person to receive an in-service distribution?

Some prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26631 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22239

Correct. Note that if no withholding choice is submitted (that is, form W-4P, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4p.pdf), there is a default to assume "Married with 3 withholding allowances". Using 2005 tables, the result is zero withholding if the monthly amount is less than about $1500.

Yes. The vesting schedules in IRC 411 and IRC 416 are minimum requirements. A plan can always use a more generous schedule.