david rigby

Who has authority to determine the answer? Likely the TPA does not.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sf.pdf Could it be here?

Not sure I agree with this, at least after the commencement date, but that may be irrelevant. Most likely, the plan does not include this in its optional forms of payment or its QDRO provisions (not QDRO administrative practices). If not in the plan, it cannot be done. Can the plan be amended to add it? Probably so, but see ERISA counsel about whether that amendment could be applied to an existing payment.

Maybe I don't get out much, but this seems a bit flaky (possibly not a technical term). If this is really happening, is tax being withheld? paid to what government? in what currency? which tax (fed, state/province, FICA) is being withheld?

Perhaps you can post the question.

The role of the original questioner is unclear, but it appears the auditor is asking a non-auditor how to do the audit. That might be a concern.

I don't think a real estate mutual fund is the same as real estate. For example, they would be recorded in different places on a 5500 Schedule H. (Of course, each asset would be evaluated on its own merits.)

Not my read of M2 or M4.

That might depend on who "we" is. One hopes the communication was in writing. Other relevant issues might be: - timing of the actual contribution(s), - whether the plan year and the sponsor's fiscal year are the same.

Stop it!

I agree with Andy. It matters. However, consider a variation: sponsor sent the money to the trustee on 9/14, and the trustee made the "posting error", with correction 3 days later. Is the money contributed on time? I say yes.

Although I have no statistics on this, it seems likley that most of those not found will be either deceased or out of the country. If deceased, the search may not be over, since a spousal benefit may exist.

And there is also a phase-in for plan amendments enacted in the last 5 years.

Not sure there is such a list, but this might be helpful. http://www.cigna.com/professional/pdf/Smal...eCPA-finalT.pdf

Not my bailiwick, so bear with me Facts - DB plan will be frozen to new participants. Freeze not applicable to current participants. - Match in 403(b) plan will be increased for all participants; otherwise, no changes to 403(b) plan. - New employees (no longer eligible for the DB plan) will receive a non-discretionary DC contribution. DB plan participants not eligible for this. - Since the DB plan will eventually have a problem with coverage under 410(b), the plan is to aggregate it with the new 1% DC account. Question Can the DC account be aggregated for the ABPT if part of the 403(b) plan or will a 401(a) plan be required? My analysis 401(a) plan will be required, per Reg. 1.410(b)-7(f). However, that Reg. was last amended in 1994. Any IRC changes that would produce a different result? Any other relevant issues? What am I missing?

If you are keeping score, that is Q&A30 from the 1999 Gray Book, but the complete response is: "All of the above are acceptable, assuming the plan is not drafted in such a way as to prevent it. In situation C, for example, a plan provision permitting deferrals expressed as a percentage of compensation but not permitting deferrals expressed as a dollar amount could not accommodate deferrals on pay in excess of $160,000. Where the plan permits deferrals expressed as a dollar amount specified in the employee's salary reduction agreement, the reference to a percentage in the individual agreement is irrelevant." Here is the appropriate copyright information: Copyright © 1999, 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.

Ouch. Not sure. Perhaps you have given all the relevant facts, but if it were me, I would be scrutinizing the facts and cirmcumstances more. May also search for my own legal advice (not the plan's or the plan sponsor's atty).

Right? Wrong? Most likely, this is not what the the plan says.

That particular retiree was covered by the Consolidated Freighways plan. According to the PBGC news release, http://www.pbgc.gov/news/press_releases/2003/pr03_38.htm the plan was 45% funded. One minor enhancement to the summary outlined by Frank above: step3 (benefits that were in pay status 3 years ago) should also include benefits that could have been in pay status 3 years ago.

Back to the original post. The sponsor (probably) does not get to choose here. Or more generically, has already chosen based on the plan provisions, which will already provide the answer. If it does not, you probably have a defective plan document and may need legal advice.

The only answer should be to follow the terms of the plan, not just to have a "paper trail."

Perhaps this is overkill, but I wonder if you already have a 410(b) issue. Read carefully IRC 410(b)(3)(A). Just because a union exists does not mean you get to ignore those employees.

Exactly wrong. The answer is to reduce (can you say "eliminate") the PBGC burden. Neither the government (taxpayers) nor other plan sponsors have an interest in "insuring" a qualifed plan, whether DB or DC. The interest of the government should be to require that a pension promise is paid for, not to amortize the cost over some future working lifetime.

Let's use this as a place to suggest topics for inclusion in the 2005 Gray Book. Real topics please, and not something that has already been answered in a previous edition. Here is my start. If others think it unworthy of suggestion, opinions are welcome. Q&A20 from the 2004 Gray Book deals with a method change (to UC) when a plan is frozen. Included in the response is "The normal cost for the plan should be $0..." Consider a frozen plan, using UC, but the actuarial assumptions include an item for expenses, which is added to the normal cost. Does the 2004 response mean mean the IRS considers a non-zero normal cost to be unreasonable in that situation?

News Release http://www-1.ibm.com/press/PressServletFor...&STATUS=publish