david rigby

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.

Try searching for "solo" here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?act=Search&f=

I agree. Perhaps you can inform the doc that the IRS is pretty sticky about the statutory maximums, and the law is quite clear that the prior plan must serve as an offset. Perhaps this will encourage the doc or his CPA to "locate" those records.

I agree with Blinky. Why does not the UCL provide a higher deductible amount?

If the desire is to provide different levels of benefits (or different early retirement provisions, or different disability provisions, etc.) within the same plan, that is also possible. Whether it is desirable is a separate discussion.

Many years ago, when I had opportunity to participate in an ESPP (not an ESOP) under IRC 423, my employer included the discount and any credited interest as taxable income. I think it was a 1099. The rules may have changed.

That is a question that should be directed to your attorney.

Assuming the 2 ERs are not related and could have no knowledge of the other plan, doesn't the burden fall to the individual? Remember that the deferrals are reported to the IRS on the W-2, so the "enforcers" will find out.

I would have no problem interpreting that plan language. IMHO, this plan provision is adequate (perhaps even preferable).

... assuming that is authorized in the plan document.

This is the discussion mentioned by Lori. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27766

You forgot taxes. The 10% is an excise tax for "early withdrawal", but the entire amount is also taxable. 20% withdrawal fee!!!! Wow. Seems like a lot to leave on the table. Does this amount decline over a few years? Should go to zero after a reasonable time. Only you can answer the question of whether the net (after fees and taxes) will be worthwhile. Depending on your bracket and state taxes, you might have only about $800 left. Most readers of these Message Boards will suggest you leave it where it is.