david rigby

Cry all the way to the bank?

This site, http://www.naea.org/pract-index.cfm, can provide various IRS documents. Archived Revenue Procedures are included back to 1998. Click on “IRS Breaking News”. Also, check the IRS for archived information: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/content/0,,id=96710,00.html Always consider searching this website: http://benefitslink.com/search/index.php or searching only these Message Boards: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?act=Search&f= In particular, Rev. Proc. 94-41 has been superseded by 2004-15, which begins on page 47 of this document: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb04-07.pdf

I believe the RSA and LSA concepts are merely proposals.

An article on a growing trend to minimize the use/importance of resumes, in general. http://www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT0...4050203-01.html

The gist of this inquiry might be one or both of: 1. 125 deductions were taken in January even tho the Board did not adopt the plan until later. 2. the sponsor may want the new 125 plan to cover expenses incurred in January even tho the Board did not adopt the plan until later.

You migt try this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/ Search using the word demutualization.

January 31, 2005 Moody’s Bond rates Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.22 5.22 Aa 5.58 5.36 5.47 A 5.65 5.44 5.55 Baa 5.82 5.96 5.89 Avg 5.68 5.50 5.59 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 3.41 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 3.89 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.52 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 255.6 Yield: 3.93 New Dividend: 10.03

Service is usually awarded based on being an employee, which is in turn confirmed by employment records showing actual hours worked. If the "employee" has hours worked but no compensation, is that a violation of minimum wage laws? Alternatively, might someone conclude that the hours records were not accurate?

I'm not so sure about the "no" part. True, the IRS does not like claims of scrivener's errors. Perhaps there is a high burden of proof, but that does not throw them out entirely. Or am I overlooking something else?

Locate Revenue Rulings here: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglist/revrulmaster.htm

I smell what we actuaries call "anti-selection". Probably, this plan will experience a loss on this person as more service accumulates. One reason that most plans don't include such provision. I'm not suggesting the plan can or should do anything about it, just an observation.

Not very common in US. (Since EE contribs are pre-tax in Canada, this is more common. That is what I remember anyway; not sure if it is current.) Certainly this plan provision is permitted, but not necessarily good personnel practice. Very awkward to administer. For example, if an EE declines to contribute one year, then the plan's recordkeeping system will want to know that, so as to exclude that year from any benefit accrual; you can imagine how difficult that might be 20 years later. If the EE contribution feature is relatively new, then very possible it was used as a technique to "sell" a benefit increase to management/Board.

Agree.

Be careful. Did you change the plan year properly? I believe that the appropriate amendment must have been adopted by March 31, 2004.

Prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27281&hl=

Actuarial Value of Assets. That is, some technique to "smooth" asset fluctuations.

And the other wrinkle is the possible use of an AVA.

What is meant by this?

The NFL? Who cares?

I don't know what this means. At any rate, I have doubts about 7%. Probably an annuity is not the best vehicle for this. Imagine that.

Here is one prior discussion thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20870 There may be others.

Hold on here. What do you want? What are you trying to accomplish? What he is selling may or may not be good, safe, etc. But, the first thing is to get a handle on what you are doing or planning. Many factors involved, such as - are investing for long-term? - is this retirement income? - your age? - your other resources? income? - dependents? - your general health (for example, if you are 65 and expect to live to 85, that might differ from an expectation to live to 75) - would this particular investment increase or diminish your diversification? - is this an individual investment or part of a company plan?

No you weren't.

Gentlemen, Perhaps we can cease the dart-throwing and negative comments, and get back to productive discourse. Thanks. For joeyd, several previous comments should be useful to you. IMHO, the most important is that you should engage the services of an experienced retirement consultant to assist in your plan design. Important facts (in no particular order) will include items such as - C corp or S corp? - what type of benefit do you want to provide? - what level of benefit do you want to provide? - what employees do you want to cover? - what level of funding can you expect (short-term and long-term are both important and may have different answers)? IMHO, when you engage an expert consultant, you may or may not decide to exclude individuals who already have a "preference", that is your choice. But, if you listen to such an expert, be sure to listen to some other experts before you make a decision. After you get some of this advice, then you may choose to come back to these Boards to bounce those ideas off the larger community. Most of us like responding to such inquiries (it is difficult to do so without some framework first).

I think this is another "stealth" ad.