david rigby

Some earlier discussion that may be relevant: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20594 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26931 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25867 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21218

Did you check plan provisions, about making contributions only if deductible?

5.07% may be the rate for 2004, depending on plan provisions. It is the December 2003 30-year Treasury Security Rate, http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96450,00.html We will not know the December 2004 rate until a few days into January.

Before getting to your specific concerns, does the plan already address how benefits will be distributed upon plan termination?

Not at all?

Absolutely not, especially in light of this from the original post:

No special expertise in this area. IMHO, if you send a 1099 for 2004 but the check is dated January 3, 2005, you will have a problem. My experience has always been that the date on the check controls which 1099 is issued. BTW, could it be argued that the check writing account (for lack of a better name) is a subset of the trust? I don't know, but I doubt you can claim a distribution was made just because the funds were transferred to another account.

pax (or Blinky): what do you want the answer to be?

Recent discusssion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27038

I'm not throwing bricks or accusations. No criticism of JohnG or others who choose to contribute financial analysis, and/or guide others in how to do that. Rather, these Message Boards are policed pretty well to keep out solicitation. If you re-read the orginal post, you can see how it might have been phrased to avoid that.

Gray Book Q&A’s have touched on this issue. Q&A 93-10 and 99-6: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19350 Q&A 2004-20: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23970

3. You will have employees working side-by-side with different benefit packages. Is that desirable? 4. Will there be some pressure to "equalize" the total compensation/benefits ?

Likely, the plan already states what options are available upon plan termination. If it includes a current lump sum, then that is one of your options. Very likely. BTW, if you wanted to purchase an annuity which had a lump sum option, it is unlikely you will find an insurance company willing to sell that product.

In my mind, that solution would be satisfactory under the IRS's comment in 1993.

Still no guidance of which I am aware to deal with short plan years. However, it has been submitted for possible inclusion in the 2005 GrayBook.

Hmmm. Could this be a "stealth" advertisement?

Aha! http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cn...4-03-15/643.asp

Refreshing to see an attorney use this phrase.

Mr. and Mrs. Grant?

On what basis would the plan administrator (rather than the plan sponsor) rest for "creating" a delay? Making the payment on January 1 instead of December 31 may not violate plan terms, but anything that is not reasonable ("as soon as administratively feasible") would likely put the PA in a bind.

Agreed. At its very basic level, the function of the SSA is to report the existence of some benefit. Don't forget to delete the participant on a subsequent SSA when paid out.

As implied by Bird, I would expect to see some other plan provisions for severance of employment due to death, disability, retirement.

Most plans will define the time at which commencement begins, and one purpose of defining "retirement" is to permit a different commencement definition. Most likely, no BIS requirement, but check plan provisions again.

Who cares about the analysis without additional accruals? I think 4.02 is pretty clear. "As of the date of termination", not as of the valuation date.

Disagree. To oversimplify, the structure if the IRC does not accomodate cash balance plans. Put the blame where it belongs, on Congress.