david rigby

Back to the original post. The sponsor (probably) does not get to choose here. Or more generically, has already chosen based on the plan provisions, which will already provide the answer. If it does not, you probably have a defective plan document and may need legal advice.

The only answer should be to follow the terms of the plan, not just to have a "paper trail."

Perhaps this is overkill, but I wonder if you already have a 410(b) issue. Read carefully IRC 410(b)(3)(A). Just because a union exists does not mean you get to ignore those employees.

Exactly wrong. The answer is to reduce (can you say "eliminate") the PBGC burden. Neither the government (taxpayers) nor other plan sponsors have an interest in "insuring" a qualifed plan, whether DB or DC. The interest of the government should be to require that a pension promise is paid for, not to amortize the cost over some future working lifetime.

Let's use this as a place to suggest topics for inclusion in the 2005 Gray Book. Real topics please, and not something that has already been answered in a previous edition. Here is my start. If others think it unworthy of suggestion, opinions are welcome. Q&A20 from the 2004 Gray Book deals with a method change (to UC) when a plan is frozen. Included in the response is "The normal cost for the plan should be $0..." Consider a frozen plan, using UC, but the actuarial assumptions include an item for expenses, which is added to the normal cost. Does the 2004 response mean mean the IRS considers a non-zero normal cost to be unreasonable in that situation?

News Release http://www-1.ibm.com/press/PressServletFor...&STATUS=publish

Might depend on several factors, such as - is a collective bargaining agreement applicable? - past practice of the employer, - written policies of the employer, - was the employee's last day paid on 8/30 or 8/31? - what does the plan say? This one tends to be very important. Usually, it is the employer rather than the employee who defines the personnel policies, so it is probably the ER who gets to state the severance of employment date.

To the best of my search capabilities, this question has not been answered in the GrayBook. That does not mean that it was not submitted; there are always questions for which the IRS chooses not to respond. MGB: if this has not been submitted in the past, please include it for the 2005 GrayBook.

Schedule E is also not open to public inspection.

Another occasion for us to acknowledge and appreciate our intrepid webmaster.

Maybe. Braves in 7.

Braves in the World Series during the 90's: 5 times. Red Sox in the World Series during the 90's: ZERO times ! Put up or shut up!

Is that the technical term?

IMHO, the first year assets must be zero. No ifs ands or buts.

...and the answer is the (now old hat) "you do what the document says". If you want to match the $3000, it appears a plan amendment will be needed.

Don't know if it can be done, but I would not expect to do it that way. But that would be at the direction of the auditor anyway. If no auditor, get it in writing from plan sponsor/accountant.

Note that line "L" subtracts line k from line f, so all entries can be without regard to sign. Or perhaps you mean something else? Does "negative liability"mean an asset?

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.