david rigby

You can probably find other similar discussion threads with the Search feature. I suggest using "real estate" as the keyword.

The instructions to the 5500 say nothing about a change in plan name. Just do it.

Ah! The sales process!

You’ve probably already seen these, but just in case: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17215 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5466 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16104 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19804 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14313 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5373 Perhaps, the simplest approach would be to make a distribution “to the extent funded”. I think it is common that plan provisions would support that.

Probably. As of today, it appears to be difficult (perhaps impossible) to completely answer your questions. Nevertheless: (a) Your given rate of 5.07% is the December 2003 30-year TSR given by the IRS. It is an average determined over the entire month of December. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96450,00.html Assuming you will need the December 2004 rate, that rate will be available about a week into January. (b) Likely. The lump sum present value is supposed to be as of the actual distribution date. While there are practicalities involved in a difference of a few days, that does not seem to apply here, where the difference is a month or more. You did not state, but it appears the plan document uses a stability period of one year (the plan year = calendar year?), and a lookback period of one month. Thus, all payments made in 2004 would use the December 2003 rate, and all payments made in 2005 would use the December 2004 rate. The point is that the plan already defines how to do this, so check the plan provisions carefully. © Maybe; check plan provisions. Likely not. (d) Again, check plan provisions. Don’t forget to use the plan’s definitions of actuarial equivalent, which might mean that the participant’s age is recalculated at a new distribution date, in addition to the change in interest rate.

Good grief. GBurns, my view of this "conversation" is that you have not yet responded to QDROphile's first comment. Likely, more than one reader would be interested in the reasoning behind your first comment. Thank you.

Probaby not, but there are differing opinions. Use the Search feature to find the many prior discussion threads on this topic. Suggested key word: "severance pay".

...and ask whether the company is taking steps to ensure that future mistakes are caught before action (sometimes referred to as "checking your work").

Once again...

I believe the regs. under 411(d)(6) are numbered 1.411(d)(4). No explict cite handy.

I make it a point to agree with QDROPhile and MGB, especially when they are right, as here. As mbozek states, there may be special circumstances that the EE could pursue (perhaps a PLR, but who cares?), but that is not the plan's or the sponsor's business. Since the EE was partially vested, likely the $ amount is not large, so the benefit would seem to be small. W/r/t the attempt to "...assist her with this situation", let's not forget the IRS sometimes take a dim view of anything that might smell of fraud. This is a result of not doing rollover; it is employee's problem.

What do you want the death benefit to be? BTW, death benefits, other than the QPSA, are not covered by 411(d)(6).

What is the point?

OK, so I don't read very well. But, my point is that the reg should be reviewed in context. It might have a purpose other than relating to a retirement plan, and the word "plan" in the text might mean something other than retirement plan. I don't know, and I don't care.

I don't see anything in the quoted regulation about a plan.

Nor does the employee pay those taxes. Bingo, this is the answer to why someone would want to do it.

If it were me hiring, I would be looking at experience, knowledge, work ethic, enthusiasm, integrity, etc. (not necessarily in that order). Perhaps it is my deficiency, when it comes to evaluating an education background, my opinion of online study is less than traditional classroom.

In general, a participant must be 50 by December 31 to make catch-up contributions any given year, not by 12/31/01.

IRC 410 does not have a subsection (f), but the regulation cite above is correct.

Do you care about all that? In creating the plan, is there any reason that you cannot begin counting vesting service at 1/1/04?

If you attempt to "roll over" from a non-qualified plan to a qualified plan or an IRA, that transaction seems to be a non-starter. Go no further.

Is this it? IRS Reg. 1.410(b)-7(f)).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but if the plan is not qualified, then the concept of "rollover" has no meaning.

IMHO, we should not presume anything unreasonable just because the retirement assumption for an over-NRA employee is changed in multiple years.

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. I would phrase it a bit differently, but OK. 4. To the best of my knowledge, no such "tie-in" is required. The net effect is that you probably only need one 412 rate, which can be the gateway rate, and one 404 rate, which might as well be the lowest rate possible.