david rigby

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.

Our intrepid webmaster went thru this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16859

Sidestepping your initial question, I have seen this several times. In all cases, it is handled by reference to the plan document, assuming the document includes language similar to what you suggest: "employment is terminated due to disability". If disablement occurs at a date when the participant is no longer an employee, isn't it obvious that the plan provision is not met?

jessicarae.tripod.com/humor/jury.html

Oh well, a Wall Street Journal article, written by Ellen Schultz. That's always reliable.

No doubt this was a typo, but it works just the way it is.

Touche. I'm guilty of overlooking that phrase. But what does it mean? It seems to be in conflict with a plain reading of the statute. Alluded to here.

Assuming you are talking about coverage, and I think you are, the reference to "union" is not quite correct. IRC 410(b)(3) lists those classifications that can be excluded from the coverage testing. This is the relevant language: (Emphasis added) The emphasized phrase is often overlooked.

IMHO, this is not the place to suggest specific language for plan amendments, etc. If not already included, I suggest using an experienced ERISA attorney to provide proper plan amendment(s). Possible variation depending on nature of plan. The attorney will tell you, first, that terminology can be important, and that the phrase "...terminating his defined benefit plan and rolling the assets..." might (!) be misleading and/or incorrect. I also recommend that the DB plan be frozen first, and then terminated. These can be in the same amendment, but they should both be explicit.

The original post discussed LOA, which is not the same as calling in sick. If the plan does not already define "actively employed" (look again, it probably comes close), then the plan administrator should either make an administrative interpretation (in writing), or request that the plan sponsor amend the plan to remove ambiguity.

Try searches of benefitslink.com, plansponsor.com. Also Google or other search engines.

Since this is the Governmental Plans forum, I'll assume the original post is intended to refer to 414(h). This sounds like a problem with payroll processing. But, just how long has the incorrect percent been applied? If briefly, can you correct it by applying payroll adjustment?