david rigby

In this case, the key word is "cigna". However, state tax laws can change. This Cigna summary was as of the beginning of 2004. It is fairly common for changes in state law to take effect at other dates, such as July 1 or October 1, so be careful.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13240

Does the plan already address this? Perhaps you can inquire of the prior TPA how they determined the deductible limit, just in case there are facts not yet in evidence.

Being cautious, the extension applies only to certain cases, outlined in here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-04-62.pdf Not heard of any additional relief planned related to hurricane Jeanne, but it's possible. If you are affected, let the IRS know.

The road to the World Series goes thru Atlanta.

A couple of the earlier discussions that might be relevant: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13781 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22497

Ouch! Get thee to competent ERISA attorney. Quickly. Make sure attorney has experience with Taft-Hartley plans and bankruptcy.

Perhaps IRS reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A 27 is relevant. Look at the plan provisions also.

Can the plan administrator issue a loan contract (OK, "issue" is not the correct term) that is in violation of the plan provisions?

My read of the W2 instructions http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/iw2w3.pdf indicates prominent use of the word "employee". If Directors are employees, then perhaps the W2 is the appropriate form; however, that is not my understanding of the relationship between company and director. Perhaps a 1099MISC ?

Will this work? Amend the plan to permit lump sum distributions at NRD, even if still employed. (Might already be there.) Take that distribution, as a direct rollover. Freeze the plan so there are no more accruals. The result is a plan with no benefits, no assets, no participants. Then terminate it.

Only "affected" participants. That means those who are affected by whatever action/transaction gives rise to a partial termination.

I don't see how a plan could make such a charge. BTW, is the plan paying the expense? should it? Perhaps the plan sponsor could charge, but why do so? The determination of the benefit is a part of having the plan in the first place. This discussion might be relevant. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20684

Andy, if you need additional counsel, even for a second opinion, I can recommend very good ERISA attorneys from several firms, in at least 3 states.

Enrolled Actuary Posse ?

Multiple postings of the same question. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26155&hl=

Four to five pounds? No expert, but I thought proposed regulations did not carry the force of law unless they were also issued as temporary regulations, which is sometimes the case. Have also heard one practioner state (approximately) "proposed regs bind the IRS but do not bind the individual". Probably not possible to generalize completely about how to advise a plan sponsor. Each reg, and each situation, should be analyzed in light of its facts and circumstances.

Perhaps one document written to encompass two different plans? (BTW, not a good idea.)

Yeah, and.... be careful about proper interpretation of the plan provisions. You appear to use the terms "award" and "distribution" interchangeably. Is it possible that the plan states a DRO (no Q) permits immediate distribution from certain sources but requires later distribution (upon EE severance of employment?) from other sources? That scenario may not be valid, but be careful.

AAAAIIIIIEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!

I think (2) is the correct reference.

Reproduced? If you mean "copied", then the answer is "nowhere". If you want copies of prior forms (hand-print version), try calling 1-800-TAXFORM and be specific about which year(s) you want. You can get the instructions also, or from the website above. If you want computer-printed forms, you will need to buy that service from a vendor.

Might there be other professional groups who have some "influence"? For example, if the "questionable practioner" were also a licensed CPA or attorney, would it be of value to identify this to the appropriate professional society? (Perhaps the answer depends on whether we talking about fraud vs. incompetence.)

I don't have any idea what this is about. Please start over. List facts (disguised for your own privacy as necessary), and chronology.

Huh?