david rigby

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

Might depend on several factors, such as - is a collective bargaining agreement applicable? - past practice of the employer, - written policies of the employer, - was the employee's last day paid on 8/30 or 8/31? - what does the plan say? This one tends to be very important. Usually, it is the employer rather than the employee who defines the personnel policies, so it is probably the ER who gets to state the severance of employment date.

To the best of my search capabilities, this question has not been answered in the GrayBook. That does not mean that it was not submitted; there are always questions for which the IRS chooses not to respond. MGB: if this has not been submitted in the past, please include it for the 2005 GrayBook.

Schedule E is also not open to public inspection.

Another occasion for us to acknowledge and appreciate our intrepid webmaster.

Maybe. Braves in 7.

Braves in the World Series during the 90's: 5 times. Red Sox in the World Series during the 90's: ZERO times ! Put up or shut up!

Is that the technical term?

IMHO, the first year assets must be zero. No ifs ands or buts.

...and the answer is the (now old hat) "you do what the document says". If you want to match the $3000, it appears a plan amendment will be needed.

Don't know if it can be done, but I would not expect to do it that way. But that would be at the direction of the auditor anyway. If no auditor, get it in writing from plan sponsor/accountant.

Note that line "L" subtracts line k from line f, so all entries can be without regard to sign. Or perhaps you mean something else? Does "negative liability"mean an asset?