david rigby

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?

Search these Message Boards for prior discussions, using such possible search words as "missing participant", "lost", etc.

Did Katherine say that? See IRC 411(a)(10). Participants with 3+ years of vesting service should be given the option for electing a vesting schedule. Any participants with less than 3 years are exempt from that requirement.

My interpretation is that (f)(1) is intended to apply to transfers during a computation period. (g) extends the issue to plan changes. Either way, a change (or transfer) that occurs on the first day of the plan year would make the point moot. Is that reasonable?

I'm not. In the original post, the change occurred on 1/1/03, which we presume is the first day of a plan year. I think 1.401(a)-7(f)(1)(i)(B) is the greater of 1 or 1. I agree with the answer of 2.

Don't take the assignment. Run. Very fast.

This is part of the 401(L) safe harbor. Is it part of the 401(a)(4) safe harbor?

These discussions might be relevant. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2931 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21324 The plan should be getting advice from its ERISA counsel.

Oops, I should rephrase for clarity. I should have said the sponsor did not want me to do the Sch.B (because I wanted a fee). Therefore, X volunteered to do it.

Plan sponsor "relieves me of my duties", and hires firm X that happens to employ at least one Enrolled Actuary. Although annoying, it was not a surprise, and we move on. The sponsor decides not to pay my modest fee for completing the Schedule B, and X says, "we'll do it". Note that X's EA did not say that, but the EA's non-actuary boss. It is beyond consideration (in this case) that X will recalculate the items to be placed on the Schedule B. Many are available in my report, but a few can only be approximated (the actuarial term for "guess"). Let's assume I know this EA will not do any such recalculation. Do any of you EA's see a problem, within the Code of Conduct, or something that should be brought to the attention of the ABCD? Any action suggested? Get over it?

And there are other prior discussions on that topic. Such as http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20568 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23482

I don't disagree with prior responses, but I'm not sure they answer the original question. In the case presented, the services "provided" are as defined by the plan sponsor. Bare bones, the EA services necessary are the Schedule B and the PBGC form, but beyond that is up to the discretion of the sponsor (or possibly the plan administrator or trustee). How such services are provided and safeguarded (peer review, etc.) is up to the parties involved, including the actuary and whoever is engaging the actuary. However, if I were engaged on a contract basis, I would want more involvement than merely signing the forms, no matter how much review is permitted and/or encouraged. Such involvement might include some direct communciation with the plan sponsor so that entity understands who is filling what role. This goes directly to Precept 8.

There have been at least two prior discussions on this topic: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2992 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12124

Assuming the freeze was executed properly, this employee did not become a participant in the plan. Therefore, no benefit.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19562 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21202