david rigby

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.

Only 3? What about "death and taxes"?

Hmmm. I reread the original post, and my concern is probably covered there. However, the quote from the original might need a bit more attention. It is not the absolute number of affected NHCEs that is relevant.

Doesn't that depend on what the plan directs you to do with the forfeiture?

This may be oversimplified, but the general rule is that a non-qualifed plan can be amended in any way desired by whoever is authorized to amend it, as long as such amendment does not violate the terms of the plan itself. There may be state law issues with respect to contracts, implied contracts, etc. That is why you would have an experienced attorney help with the amendment, and, for that matter, with the production of the plan document in the first place. (I am not an attorney.)

Annoucement 2004-58 provides a delay, but it has exceptions. Read carefully. http://benefitslink.com/IRS/ann2004-58.pdf

Not sure what you mean by "excerpt". The Q&A printed above is complete as is. Are you asking for access to the entire GrayBook? It is not available. I paid for my copy (OK, my employer paid for it). Belgarath, I agree with you, but I do not want to speculate which interpretation the IRS might be using.

What does the plan say about the plan sponsor's ability to amend the plan?

From Gray Book, 2003-33 Other DB Issues: Reduction in Accrued Benefit A plan defines average compensation as the average pay during the last 5 (not highest 5 of last n) years of employment. a) If the participant took a pay cut such that his last 5-year average is less than such average determined in previous years, would it be permissible to reduce the accrued benefit solely on account of such pay cut? b) Does it matter whether the lower accrued benefit occurred while the employee was eligible to retire early since, as evidenced by Example 4 in Reg. 1.411(a)-7©(6), a less restrictive rule applies -- a participant’s normal retirement benefit may not be less than the greatest annual benefit the participant would have been entitled to receive at any earlier age? RESPONSE a) No, the accrued benefit may not be reduced. b) No, it doesn’t matter. Copyright © 2003, 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. Many practioners do not agree with the IRS in this regard. As Carly notes, 411(d)(6) cannot be used to support the IRS position. I don't know if 411(b)(1)(G) supports it; further study of that subsection (and its history) may be needed.

If you have any hope of recovering a portion of your outstanding fees, an alternative might be a written suspension of your services, pending payment. Resignation will probably be equivalent to giving up on collecting your receivable.

Sure it can. Vesting service continues, but that does not mean the vesting percentage has to change every year. Check the plan provisions.

There is no IRS requirement that the IRS pre-approve a plan termination, but there might be some requirement in whatever documents are between Principal and the plan/plan sponsor. However, if there is a funding deficiency (or if part of the $200K is a funding deficiency), it seems very unlikely that a "provider" (trustee?) can or would exert any influence that might delay that payment. Careful analysis of the facts is needed. If Principal does not want the money (which I really doubt), it may be possible for the sponsor to create another trust to receive the payment.

Do a search of the message boards for "funding waiver" for some other discussion. A waiver application must be submitted no later than 2-1/2 months after the end of the plan year. IRS has said that deadline is not extendable.

Ball park: If recipient is age 65, multiply the monthly benefit by 128.218. If the recipient is age 50, and the benefit is assumed to start at age 65, multiply by 54.867. Assumptions: 1983 GAM Table (male, not unisex), 5.0%. Obviously, more information is needed to provide a "better ballpark".

What do you mean "...appears to say..."?