david rigby

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

I was wondering about that also. Please be specific about your answer. The first penalty is 10% (no waiver possible), and it jumps to 100% if not cured within a year. Thus Andy's comment about midnight.

The notary's signature must always come after the spouse's. The question is whether the spouse's can precede the participant's. It seems contrary to the purpose for that ordering, but I doubt you can depend on the notary to enforce that issue. However, if the witness is a plan representative, you can reach the opposite conclusion.

Dave, the search feature seems not to permit words less than 4 characters. Therefore a search on "SAR" or "SPD" does not work. Is it possible to modify this to 3 characters?

Several prior discussions on related topics. Try the Search feature.

This has probably come up before. Call Jim Holland, or the hotline, and ask. BTW, if the plan remains in FF, does it matter what base you have to establish?

Blinky, Example, assume PY is CY, and you acquire the client on April 1, 2004, to do the 2004 valuation. If you can re-do the 2003, change the method under the Rev. Proc. Then change again for 2004 under 4.02, assuming it qualifies.

Who cares what the wishes of the TPA are? Has the plan sponsor/plan administrator/trustee communicated that the assets should be transferred from A to B? Has the prior custodian acknowledged and promised compliance? If so, see above responses.

Can you re-do the prior year, changing the method?

I agree. As far as I can tell, the IRS position against a negative unfunded is without hesitation or waiver. They simply will not accept it. I would not attempt to force it, and would make sure the equation of balance works. BTW, it is permissible to have a negative expected UAL.

Go away !!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like Blinky is right on here. Transferring benefits along with employment change is governed entirely by the plans (plural). If the plans are silent, then money does not move. One hopes that the plans also are specific w/r/t vesting, but if not, see Blinky's comment.