david rigby

Many. More importantly, many unanswered questions. For example, other employees? What type of business (LLC, corporation, etc.)? Goal(s) of the plan sponsor (other than putting in something for tax deferral)? What level of benefit is considered? I recommend hiring an actuary who is experienced in small plan design. (Well, you didn't think I was going to recommend hiring a gorilla, did you?)

It may be a typo, but that still does not tell you if it should have been IA71 or IA83. Perhaps an older document might clarify?

I've been around since before 1981, and have never heard of such a table. Possible that it could be based in another country (such as Canada or UK), but I did not see anything listed in the SOA Table manager here. I agree with SoCal, that the most likely answer is a projection from another table

1. What does the plan say? 2. Any precedent? 3. Is this an HCE? Could any claim of discrimination arise? 4. See (1).

No disrespect to either Blinky or Kirk, both of whom are excellent contributors to these Boards, but I don't think Kirk’s statement is what Blinky was saying. In fact, an actuary (specifically, an Enrolled Actuary, for an ERISA plan) should always be reassessing the reasonableness of the actuarial assumptions. Importantly, "reassess" does not mean "change." In theory, the actuary could make changes to a set of assumptions every year. Examples would include small changes in a turnover or salary scale assumption. Larger changes might include the interest/discount rate, or the mortality table. (Please, no comments about "large" or "small"; two points, what is the impact of a possible change, and what is the effort in measuring a change.) Consider, virtually every year, a small change could be appropriate (fine tune the salary scale or turnover assumption), but is ignored because it makes so little difference to the end result. Here, there is no single definition of "end result", but is most likely the annual contribution or the funded ratio. One reason this is so, is that most actuarial funding methods are self-correcting; that is a good thing, and is exactly the reason the assets and liabilities are reevaluated and compared on a regular basis. How does this relate to the original question? Possibly, the assumption about purchasing life insurance is unreasonable; if so, that determination is (or should have been) apparent because it has been contrary to facts for a period of time. However, one deviation of facts from assumptions is not a determination of “unreasonableness”. In this case, the actuary would converse with the plan sponsor/plan administrator to review the issues concerning the possible purchase of insurance; in reviewing the assumption, likely the most relevant facts will come from that conversation, not from observing that no insurance was purchased. The actuary’s goal is to value the death benefit under the plan; proper assumptions for this goal will be chosen; therefore, the actuary may decide to alter an assumption next year. All of this is very different from saying a portion of a contribution may not be deductible.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but this sounds like a mixture of 412 and 404. There appears to be some doubt in this discussion about the "reasonableness" of the Normal Cost. That does not necessarily affect the deductible contribution limit.

I find the Search feature to be very useful. In this case, I remembered there was a prior discussion thread on rounding, but did not remember whether it was exactly on point. So I used "round" or "rounding" as my search word. Using "401(a)(26)" as a search word may or may not be successful. The key is being creative with the search word, and trying more than one.

I'm curious. Anyone had any first-hand experience with this, that you would be willing to relate? That is, anyone gone to the judge to say you think the divorce is a sham?

Does anyone ever?

I think that's why they use the term qualified to describe the DRO.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26640

Usually, termination of employment is different from termination of the plan. The plan provisions will probably indicate that the latter triggers distribution of the benefit in one form or another.

Good for the employer to remind EEs what the current designation is; maybe not so good to require a new form.

I agree with Kirk that it is a waste of time, but I read the original post to mean: 2. If you don't, then the plan's default definition will apply. So now we are back to

Could it be because you can change the allocation formula in a PS plan?

Does the plan really state this, or did the plan administrator make it up? If this administrative policy, is there a good reason for it? Seems onerous, even unwise. It may have been "clearly communicated", but that is in doubt since

Not definitive, but I believe you will find very few DB plans, and common occurrence of TIAA-CREF. You might check that website. If you have specific targets (Ivy League, for example), go directly.

I'll guess that current NHCE participants will be resentful of this. Have you considered the alternative of default enrollment?

I'm not aware of the ability of a union to negotiate away benefits already accrued, regardless of funding levels or other consideration.

Can you explain to us non-lawyers what this means? I thought this is why we have QDROs and 414(p).

Was this response insufficient? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27390

http://benefitslink.com/erisa/crossreference.html http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ebsa/Title_29/Chapter_XXV.htm

Non-qualified plan assets?

I am reviewing draft footnote from non-profit sponsor (don't know who prepared the draft, probably auditor), with the following item immediately following the funded status: Never seen this before. Can anyone help my poor brain understand what this means?

I recognize that it happens with many small plans. IMHO, it is a practice that should be avoided. It's just too easy to make a mistake, and too easy to have a separate account to avoid that mistake.