david rigby

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..."?

Really? I thought the IRC 411 and the vesting provisions of IRC 416 set forth minimum requirements. Are you saying that a 5-yr cliff plan that becomes top-heavy cannot use a schedule of 2/20, 3/40, 4/60, 5/100 ?

Would it accomplish your goal to - ignore the plan year issue, - freeze the plan at 9/30/04, and - terminate it simultaneously?

Good reading, even for those who only occassionally deal with QDROs: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/aos/ao2004-02a.html

Can the court compel? Is the plan/employer a party to the determination of parental rights? support? dependency?

Sorry to be so paranoid, especially on a Friday, but this is not good enough. The end result of flogger's story is probably that "Bill" is avoiding him. That is a far cry from cleaning up his act, and even further from being held responsible for fraud. Would any of our contributing attorneys or accountants want to let this go if the person were impersonating one of their profession (perhaps he has done that as well)? I doubt it. I still look for action. BTW, the phonetic pronunciation is (approximately) as given by flogger, but the spelling is "yarmulke".

Oops. Correct.

Retirees also.

click here, scroll down to find Rev. Ruling 2003-44. http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/index_short.html

Earlier discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23284

Do you mean the 415© limit? That limit is individual.

Is the child a dependent? Does your plan (or administrative proecedures) require some documentation of that status?