david rigby

Will this answer from HarryO help?

Perhaps this was intended to mean terminating or merging? Difficult to do both.

This may be relevant to the questioner: Gray Book 2003-27 Other DB Issues: Level Income Option and Rollovers A plan offers a level income option. A participant elects the level income option and receives $500 from age 55 to age 62 and nothing after age 62. Is each payment from age 55 to age 62 eligible for rollover? RESPONSE Yes. Under 1.402©-2 Q3, the payments are made over a period less than 10 years and are thus eligible for rollover. If these annuity payments are not rolled over, 20% mandatory withholding applies.

Hold on. What does the plan say? Is the $200K deductible? Any provision that requires a contribution to be deductible in order for it to be deemed a "contribution"? Second, Belgarath, I would appreciate you e-mailing me the address of this plan sponsor so I can send him an invoice.

Not sure I understand all the facts. There may also be an inconsistency. When is the curtailment? 12/31/04 or 01/01/05? Better question might be, when is the curtailment being recognized? If at 12/31/04, then the 12/31/04 (Accrued)/Prepaid Pension Cost should already have the curtailment gain/loss, and all 2005 values are determined after the curtailment/freeze.

Not to be flippant, but that might depend on who you are (sponsor, auditor, actuary, etc.) Perhaps you can elaborate. A couple of prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24886 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26985

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?