david rigby

Gray Book, 2004-9 Funding: Minimum Funding Contribution Due Dates Plan A’s plan year is December 20 through December 19. The four plan-year quarters end on March 19, June 19, September 19, and December 19. a) IRC 412(m)(3)(B) requires quarterly contributions for calendar year plans to be deposited by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 of the following year. Further, IRC 412(m)(6)(A) states that for fiscal year plans, the month in the aforementioned due dates would be substituted with the corresponding month of the fiscal year. This would suggest the due date is always the 15th of a month, and only the month due changes. As such, for this plan, the quarterly contributions would be due March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15 -- four days before the end of each quarter. However, Q&A-1 of Notice 89-52 states that quarterly installments are due 15 days after the end of each quarter. Under this guidance, this plan's quarterly contributions would be due April 2, July 3, October 3, and January 2 of the following year. What are the correct quarterly contribution due dates for Plan A? b) What is the last day that a contribution may be made to Plan A and count for the prior plan year under IRC 412©(10)? RESPONSE a) Notice 89-52 is the IRS's interpretation of the requirements of IRC 412(m)(3)(B) and 412(m)(6)(A). Therefore, the quarterly contributions are due April 2, July 3, October 3, and January 2. b) September 3, 2004, which is the "day which is 8-1/2 months after the close of the plan year." Copyright © 2004, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

IRC 411 (10) Changes in vesting schedule (A) General rule A plan amendment changing any vesting schedule under the plan shall be treated as not satisfying the requirements of paragraph (2) if the nonforfeitable percentage of the accrued benefit derived from employer contributions (determined as of the later of the date such amendment is adopted, or the date such amendment becomes effective) of any employee who is a participant in the plan is less than such nonforfeitable percentage computed under the plan without regard to such amendment. (B) Election of former schedule A plan amendment changing any vesting schedule under the plan shall be treated as not satisfying the requirements of paragraph (2) unless each participant having not less than 3 years of service is permitted to elect, within a reasonable period after the adoption of such amendment, to have his nonforfeitable percentage computed under the plan without regard to such amendment.

Here is some information: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...=112482,00.html

Just because he's right does not also mean he's not crazy.

Hmm. Since the $50K is more than the "gift tax limit", would such payment to the ex-spouse also trigger the gift tax, or might the divorce order have a bearing on that?

Timing of the events/plan changes can be important. In general, you will have - A plan amendment freezing accruals. FAS88 curtailment. That's when the PBO becomes = ABO. Note importance of timing; if it occurs during the middle of a plan year (or is that fiscal year?), the sponsor should determine when to recognize it. Practicalities do factor into that decision. If recogized immediately, then the NPPC for the balance of the year will be redetermined (approximations may occur). - A plan termination, resulting in distribution of benefits. May occur much later than the freeze. If so, ongoing determination of NPPC, with zero svc cost. FAS88 settlement. FAS88 tells us to recognized a curtailment when it can reasonable be measured, but recogize a settlement when it occurs. Have I left out something?

This might be immaterial, but the Plan may need to determine if one or more others could have also been a beneficiary if the Plan had been informed of the death in a timely manner (for example, a sibling who has since died). I don't know, just being cautious.

A. Husband declares IRA withdrawal as taxable income. Ex-wife gets the money tax-free. Hence, answer from mbozek.

Isn't this question already answered in the plan provisions? If ambiguous (could be, but should not), what precedent has been set?

http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1104/news/y...vard_prank.html

Agree with Appleby. Look around and you will see many recent examples of "masked" SSNs, which can be as simple as blanking out the first 5 digits.

Perhaps the court (or maybe the ex-spouse's attorney) is aware of pre-emption, which is why a court order also restraining the participant from applying for benefits. Possible? Whether or not the order to the plan is valid, if the participant does not apply for benefits, the plan does nothing. ??

Purchase? Will this do? http://www.benefitslink.com/pr/detail.php?id=38419 http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96461,00.html

I'm not aware of that condition in the IRC or the regulations. Ask the auditor to prove it.

, assuming we are talking about ERISA plans.

I agree with Blinky. That is the correct revenue ruling, which can be read here: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglist/revrulmaster.htm

Reasonable points, but it does not follow (in all cases) that "...employees should properly feel devalued..."

True, but the comments are not meant to imply replacing a payroll system, just using it properly, and in accord with plan provisions. Too many seem to treat the latter as a nuisance.

Similar, but both terms are used inconsistently. Better approach might be to specify: - the frequency of the periodic payment (monthly, quarterly, annual) and - whether it has a term certain (such as ten years) or is a life annuity.

Yeah, and please remember there is a significant difference between "spinoff" and "rollover".

Don't expect many attorneys to go after punitive damages unless deep pockets are visible.

As QDROphile has implied, you need not be bound by your payroll system. The mechanics of payroll deduction should permit a "true-up", thus permitting participants to reach the 402g limit. Also, check plan provisions carefully; it is possible prior administration (that is, limiting the deductions) has not been in accord with the plan document.

February 2005. http://www.cyberisa.com/erisa_book_form.htm

Good comments from Frank. A minor point: sometimes these situations have a simplified view of actuarial assumptions. For example, if the comp for A is greater than the 401(a)(17) limit and significant to all other compensation, a salary scale might be ignored. In this case, and with the IA method, that assumption might not be the best approach. Try it both ways.

Belgarath's comments are important, and well stated. Let me add another: if the employer has been engaging in the action summarized in the original post, there may be bigger problems looming, such as the financial viability of the company. It would probably be prudent to proceed toward getting the plan "straight", perhaps in a polite "non-audit" manner.