david rigby

Note that several places in ERISA and the IRC state that governmental plans are exempt, but must still comply with pre-ERISA IRC. See for example, IRC 411(e)(2).

To elaborate/consolidate above answers, you have to offer what the plan says, which is to provide the accrued benefit as defined in the plan. To do so would probably require that the plan purchase a (fully-paid) deferred annuity, which begins at the NRD and with all the plan's relevant provisions (early retirement, optional forms, QPSA, etc.). Most documents will also include a lump sum option upon plan termination, but it is not required. The reference to 417 above is to note the additional regulatory requirement that the offer of a lump sum must also include an immediate annuity as an option. On a practical note, you will not find an insurance company willing to sell a deferred annuity on an individual basis. Therefore, any EE who chooses the deferred annuity option may have to be given the equivalent immeidate annuity. As Blinky implies, this choice is unlikely, but I have seen it happen.

You need to renegotiate your fee?

I thought this kind of wrap worked the other direction.

Some of us are blocked from eBay by our company network. Can you post this as an attachment?

I make it a point to agree with MGB, especially when he is right, as now. Similar discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19190

IRS Publication 590: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf

Now? Wouldn't that be a cutback under 411(d)(6)? Check plan provisions?

I reproduced your numbers exactly.

Effen's request for clarification is valid. However, let me try: What is probably meant is that the sponsor of one or more employee benefit plans is being acquired. If so, it is essential that the buy-sell agreement be carefully examined. (Preferably, someone with EE benefits experience will have input before the agreement is finalized, but that is ususally a crapshoot.) There are many variations of result. But whatever the form (usually, the seller retains the plan responsibility or the buyer gets it), the plan(s) must continue to be operated according to the terms of the document. The buy-sell might specify something specific, thus it must be examined. Much more discussion is possible, but that is the nutshell.

Not trying to deviate from the "simple life", but there are three possible limits: - 402(g) limit, mentioned above, - plan imposed limit, - limit reached via the ADP test. The catch-up contribution "kicks in" at the lowest of these limits.

Does anyone have any additional information on this topic?

Adjustment? Not sure what you mean. Just use the definition of actuarial equivalent in the plan. Do you want it checked? Post the definition and the factor, and someone will respond.

so what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks?

Carol Calhoun's website may have something, or a link to something that may help you. http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?name=Web_Links

Correct. Before going down the road to anguish of a non-deductible contribution, careful analysis by a qualified actuary is in order. You don't have to give the details here if you don't want to, but we will be glad to help if you do.

Agreed. Perhaps not relevant, but has anyone checked this lump sum against 415 limits?

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.