david rigby

, 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.

Don’t mean to imply “get lost”, rather suggesting a place to begin. Reading the SPD will provide frogman some help, whether or not we specify what he should look for. But, try this: the SPD might give some information related to the deposit of employee contributions (and employer contributions, if applicable): when, where, etc. It may not be extremely detailed, but the SPD is the place to start. In addition, the SPD will give some information about the plan's claim procedure. Is this a "claim"? I don't know, but read it and find out. The Form 5500 requires reporting of delinquent employee contributions. See http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_compliance_5500.html As a plan participant, frogman can request a copy of the 5500 for all years in question. BTW, your employer can charge you a per-page copying charge for this. Also, look here for more information http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/consumer_info_pension.html

Re-read a copy of the plan's Summary Plan Description (SPD).

I'm shocked, shocked that you could believe such a thing! Do you really think benefits managers have that kind of authority?

Perhaps this is oversimplifying, but I disagree with the plan going to court here, or asking for tax records, etc. The important points should be - the plan defines who is eligible for a benefit, - the plan administrator should have procedures for documentation, - the plan has claims procedures. It is the responsibility of the PA to follow them, which might include providing the claimant a copy. Follow the plan.

Probably wise to make sure the plan uses its own claim procedures first, as outlined in plan provisions and administrative procedures.

As you state, the ball is in her court. Generally, a plan may (and should) establish reasonable documentation requirements before authorizing any distribution. For example, it is probably common to require a copy of a death certificate before paying any benefit which is triggered on death. A birth certificate can also be required to prove age, and a marriage license similarly. What documentaion accepted is up to the plan administator. For example, do you require certified copies of the documentian? This is a procedure of plan administration, not of plan provisions. Procedures should be written, and applied equally (or is that "equivalently"). The procedure may also include what to do if fraud is suspected.

Can a pension plan (not clear if it is a qualified plan) lend money to another plan? Why would it do so? Why would a welfare plan need to borrow money? How can a welfare plan repay a loan?

I most definitely will not comment on that or any other firm. However, you can also consider other firms. In addition, you can search for pension actuaries here. Click on "Search the Directory".

OK, dh003i, you started this thread as a vehicle to express an opinion, which has now become a rant. For me, the connection between this Board and Abraham Lincoln is a bit spurious, but that is a different matter. Drop the profanity.

Though possible, the plan may not be a 401(k). But that is irrelevant to your Q. Usually, the terms of the plan document will describe the timing and conditions for a distribution. The laws and regulations that would apply to a governmental plan are those of the state and/or local government. A plan participant should review the employee communication material that describes the plan, which was probably previously provided to that employee. Likely, there are more relevant facts than have been presented.

1. Probably the employee group "became unionized" rather than the plan. 2. The plan may contain language that will exclude those employees from active participation, based on the negotiation of the collective bargaining unit. It is unlikely the CBA and the employer anticipate that those employees will continue to participate in the 401(k) for deferrals only, while the employer makes other contributions for them to another plan. Possible, but look to the provisions of the CBA and plan document.

He is not listed in the online version of the Actuarial Directory. The last paper version which included him was 2002 (roughly effective at the end of 2001). He was listed as working for PwC in Teaneck NJ.

Is this it? http://www.asppa.org/archive/gac/2004/2004...0-exclusion.htm

Correct. But that is not what the Code says, so the age discrimination arguments go on.