david rigby

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?

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.