david rigby

stevena, on another message, you indicated the general location where you are applying. Don't forget to look here for alternatives, and look thru several categories for those in the state/region you are looking.

Just because there is no account does not mean it is not available.

OK, it might be acceptable to use the "will be provided on request" approach, but this makes sense only when there jsut isn't room to list everything, IMHO. But that does not change my preference to 'list it all". If you were building a resume at age 40, would you list only the last 10 years or so, leave a "gap", and list your academic background? Not me.

... and don't forget to review plan provisions, especially with respect to whether a QDRO will trigger a distribution (versus merely a segregation of the account).

Maybe. What really counts is whether the rate is reasonable now, not whether it is consistent with last year's rate (which may not have been reasonable at the time).

I beleive that the Q is: - employee X worked for company A, left employment, went to work for Company B (whether or not directly); - Company A is acquiring Company B; - A is placing B's employees under A's employee benefit plans; - does A have any requirements on how it recognizes X's service with A? Is this it?

I've been out of the job market for several years. If this is the new "technique" for designing a resume, I flatly reject it. Not acceptable. If I were the interviewer, this resume would not get anywhere.

Well said. But beware, you may be interviewing with someone who formerly worked at the first firm, and who might not have the same perspective as you. BTW, as implied by my first response, an omission from a resume could be considered a form of lying, IMHO.

12/31/04 Industrial Aaa 5.43% Aa 5.56 A 5.66 12/31/04 Corporate Aaa 5.43% Aa 5.66 A 5.77 12/31/04 Utilities Aaa n/a Aa 5.75 A 5.88 Moodys_Rates_12312004.html

Perhaps some will think me "pollyannaish" (as if I care), but my advice is: Never lie, directly or indirectly, on your resume. Enhance the cover letter with whatever brief explanations are desired.

Full set of forms and instructions http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html#section1

I agree. It seems an important point in determining what is a "professional". Might not be fair, but that is not the point.

Since the original post touched on so many different issues, it is difficult to respond, except to say: - there is ambiguity in original post as whether there is more than one plan; - there is no requirement that all employees have exactly the same benefits, whether in one plan or more; - the plan provisions are what they are, whether or not they seem "fair" to everyone; - I very much doubt you are only "...30% in the white collar pension..." if you are "...totally vested in the blue collar pension...". However, it is also possible that you are using the term "vested" in a manner other than its usual meaning.

The relevant section of PBGC opinon letter 76-106:

Some prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5375 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20783 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21119 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16599

Actuaries use a different phrase for the acronym CPA (and no, I won't post it).

I agree, there was probably a way to avoid this. At this point, it seems to be moot, but maybe not, so have your actuary look at the situation.

... and the organization pushing it just happens to be a financial institution where the participant can have his IRA. BTW, don't be surprised if some insurance or annuity product is present.

Very difficult to determine "fault". You may want to review some of the other postings in this same message board. In a nutshell, Verizon's job is to administer the plan properly. One small part of that is determining if they will accept a proposed QDRO submitted by you or attorney. Applicable statute is Internal Revenue Code 414(p). Note that Verizon may accept as valid a QDRO that may have small defects that have no bearing on the ability to properly interpret and administer it; but that is still their decision. Likely, they see draft QDRO's every day, so they have well-defined procedures.

Is this broker 9 years old?

I'm no expert, but you clearly need to have this conversation with a qualified attorney. If the prospective attorney is not intimately familiar with a QDRO, then keep looking. 1. n/a 2. Yes. Bell Atlantic and GTE merge 07/03/2000 to form Verizon. 3. Discuss with attorney. 4. ? 5. Your wife may have a copy, provided by her attorney. If not, see if the records of the (now deceased) attorney may have a copy. 6. Not sure what this means, but it sounds promising. Discuss with attorney. 7. Compromise may be possible, for example if the approximate amount from 1992 is known. However, practicality of dealing with old records will be important. 8. EBSA cannot help, except you should review the QDRO literature on their website. 9. Might be a problem. Don't know if the ESOP still exists. (It could have been merged into another plan.) I have a copy of the SAR's recently sent out by Verizon; no ESOP included. 10. Discuss with attorney. 11. When you/attorney write to them, you can request a phone number, but don't hold your breath. This address is included in the SAR booklet mentioned above: Stephanee Wallace Executive Director - Benefits Verizon Services Corporation 750 Canyon Drive Coppell, TX 75019 12. My best to you all. BTW, there are 4 defined contribution plans and 18 defined benefit plans for which Verizon produced an SAR. You may need to be careful with identifying the correct plan(s) by name.

Blinky is correct. More directly, you reference the "maximum of $165K". The $165K maximum is not a lump sum limit, but refers to a maximum annual benefit that can be paid by a defined benefit plan. The lump sum equivalent of such amount could be well over $1 million. So, as Blinky suggests, there are apples and oranges in this discussion, and it appears you can ignore all comments about the maximum. This also means that if your lump sum, re-calculated for payment in 2005, exceeds $165K, do not let anyone tell you it must be reduced to that amount.

Well "discretionary" certainly is an important word. But look at the original post: "...an additional 3% PS contribution..." If that is the goal, then why would the 1000-hour rule (or anything else) prohibit such amendment? The original Q seems to be asking if such amendment would be discriminatory, which is usually a question related to 401(a)(4), but most of the above answers seem to be focusing on 411(d)(6). Accordingly, if the affected individuals are all NHCEs, as described in original post, then the proposed amendment will not fail 401(a)(4).

Disagree. Just because some or all participants have earned the right to an allocation, does not mean you cannot still amend the plan to provide another level (or class) of benefit.

Rev.Ruling 81-114 includes this (emphasis added): Is it possible that the local law does require a trust to have a corpus? Also, it may be that the financial institution requires a corpus.