david rigby

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.

Have you researched the advice on the many websites devoted to helping fight identity theft? identiftytheft.com Try a search engine.

Possibly retired before 70-1/2 (but after the change in those rules) and thought he could defer as long as he wanted? Ultimately, the reason does not matter, since the important issue is to follow the terms of the document.

Perhaps the participant is not a 5 percent owner?

Does it matter where the payments come from? If the quarterly payments are from a retirement plan (perhaps in addition to a monthly annuity), how does that alter the analysis?

Many years ago, I had a client plan with normal form defined as 50%J&S if you are married, or 5CC if you are not, with no adjustment of any kind. If that definition is still valid, something like it might provide an alternative for your use.

That analogy is very thin. Mandatory car insurance is to protect the "other guy". You are not required to insure your own car or own potential losses, but to insure against causing harm/damage to someone else. The government does not issue the insurance, but requires the driver/car owner to purchase a minimum level from the insurer of his/her choosing. Many will purchase more than the minimum, exercising an cost/benefit decision. This is significantly different from PBGC insurance: (1) There is no private market. You cannot buy coverage greater than the minimum. That by itself should be an enormous clue that no insurer would consider this an “insurable event". I'm curious, does anyone think it is an insurable event? (2) Insuring against a pension plan termination is tantamount to insuring the viability of the plan sponsor, and perhaps its industry or geographic region. No insurer would take such a risk, so why is it important that the government manufacture that fantasy? (3) Technically, the PBGC structure is such that other plan sponsors are paying the premiums/tax, at least until a bailout. What interest do other companies have in insuring your pension plan? Perhaps the opposite of a tontine, it can become a death spiral. (4) A well-funded pension plan, dutifully paying its premiums each year, is contributing to the revenue side of the PBGC but never really contributes any potential liability. Thus, it is a tax. (5) A small pension plan, with a substantial owner, may never contribute any significant liability to the PBGC, even if the company and the plan become insolvent. Also a tax. A dirty little secret that regulators do not like to discuss. (6) There is a general public interest at large (rather than only other plan sponsors) that plans/sponsors are able to meet their promise. Thus, the existence of IRC 412. The public interest in pension promises gives rise to pre-funding, trusts, deductions, etc. In other words, ERISA. However, that public interest has been unnecessarily and unwisely extended to minutiae, for example the amortization period of gains and losses. A better view is to require the pre-funding to be sufficient at all times to pay for the promised benefit. If the money is not there in the trust, then it is immediately due. (If you can't pay for it, don't promise it. If you can't pay for it, don't expect others to bail you out.) Beyond that, there is no need of IRC oversight of minimum funding. This instantly makes irrelevant the IRC structure that has encouraged underfunding. For example, a plan amendment to provide a one-time COLA to existing retirees is funded over 30 years, thus allowing the sponsor to pay for the benefit improvement well beyond the expected lifetime of all recipients. It is a very short step to recognize that since the trust already contains the funds necessary to secure the promise (perhaps the minimum is 110% or 120% or other amount), then the PBGC has no reason to exist. If a company or industry wants additional protection, then they have the choice of enlarging the funding cushion in the trust or creating their own insurance pool. Neither requires taxpayer bailout. PBGC existence diverts funds from more useful purposes, one of which might even be enlarging the funding cushion.

Multiple postings of the same question. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26771

Before going down that road too quickly, let's be sure a 403(b) plan is available. What kind of "company" is this? Perhaps you do not specifcially mean a 403(b) plan but (more generically) a defined contribution plan?

AAIIIIEEEE !!!! The problem is not The problem is that the agency was created to insure an uninsurable event. Yes, Congress will have to come up with a mechanism to take care of this deficit, but "raise the premiums substantially" is not an equitable mechanism (IMHO, not an acceptable mechanism) because it forces the "successful" to subsidize others. It forces plan sponsors to insure the survival of other plan sponsors, which is a ridiculous concept in a free-market economy. If there is ample reason to "insure" a defined benefit plan, why is there no corresponding "guarantee" to a DC plan participant that his/her account balance will never experience losses?

This may not answer your question, but it provides some brief background: Handouts for 10/13/04 Board meeting. See pages 13-14. http://www.fasb.org/board_handouts/10-13-04.pdf Minutes from 10/13/04 Board meeting. See pages 5-6. http://www.fasb.org/board_meeting_minutes/10-13-04_fas87.pdf And webcast (that just ended): http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/ce-meetings...cast---content/

Look here: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pers1.htm Specifically, look at the "member handbook" and glance thru the list of Frequently Asked Questions.