david rigby

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.

Ouch. $23 billion! http://www.pbgc.gov/news/press_releases/2004/pr05_10.htm

I recently used 1-877-829-5500. I think it was specifically for Qs on qualified plans. On hold for a while, but the discussion was worthwhile. However, if the question is complex, it will probably be transcribed with a promise that "someone will call you."

Might be some help here: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/

Huh? Gold and silver what? Ownership? Appreciation? Just because you don't like it, does not mean it's unconstitutional.

IRS Information Letter 2000-0245 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/00-0245.pdf

Candidate for the GrayBook. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26722

Perhaps I misunderstand your question. It is my understanding that the non-discrimination testing for a window is concerned with who is eligible, rather than who elects.

All answers above are correct.

Not disagreeing with prior posts, please clarify: the orginal post implies that you might be participating in the same plan after this "transition". Correct? (Remember, the plan is sponsored by the employer, not the TPA.)

Pardon the need for clarification: for 2004, the comp limit was indexed to $205K. Are your asking if that new limit can be used to apply to comp in years before 2004? That is not the way I understand the law.

Not aware of a checklist, but you might include - the election form, including J&S explanation, - tax notice if a lump sum is available, - direct deposit authorization, - beneficiary election if applicable, - return envelope, - who/where to call if the check is late, or if address changes, - W-4P (is that the correct form number?), - "have a great retirement" letter, - gold watch. What have I left out?

Only a few thoughts from here. Probably a lot of pitfalls. - If the PS plan was terminated and distributed, can't "get it back." Sponsor may be able to create a new one, prospective. - Before assuming the MPP plan is a 2004 problem, check plan provisions to see if it can be amended prior to yearend. Maybe even merged into the new PS plan. Just a hunch, but I'll bet there are "facts not yet in evidence" especially why the PS plan was terminated.

Maybe not. As pointed out by JanetM, nothing can come out of the PS plan unless there is a distibutable event. Check SPD. If the employer is being acquired, the stock in the plan will be replaced by the purchase price (which could be cash or stock of the buyer, or combination).

Generally, "termination" means a plan ceases to exist. To accomplish this, all benefits are distributed, or "liquidated" in your terminology. Perhaps you merely want a "frozen" plan; ie, just stop contributing to it. I like Blinky's suggestion to get some non-biased advice.