david rigby

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?

That would be as specified in the plan. Competent drafting will already have included the answer to your question in the document itself. If the plan is silent, the sponsor could amend the plan (either way for clarity), but consult competent ERISA attorney first to make sure no violation of 411(d)(6).

Leave it alone? Ask when the surrender charge (that's what it is) will be reduced to a much lower level or even zero?

"Waiting for part 2" is not strong enough. I am very concerned that anyone would impersonate an actuary, even if only on paper (is that an oxymoron?). As far as I am concerned, this constitutes fraud, and should not go unchallenged. My profession's (as well as my own) integrity is at stake. I would be interested in hearing views of others, especially as to whether there is any course of action with "teeth".

I'm with SteveC on this one.

If the plan does not require spousal consent, why does anyone care about a (possible) forgery? More interesting might be whether there was a distributable event under the plan.

From the Joint Board website: http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/actuaries/artic...0.html#standing

MGB’s comments are correct. The table I posted above is from IRS Revenue Ruling 2001-62, and is derived from a 1994 table. I assumed that was the nature of wmyer's request, but perhaps that is incorrect. See the 1995 edition of the Transactions of the Society of Actuaries for these articles: http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1990-95/TSA95V4721.pdf http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1990-95/TSA95V4720.pdf http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1990-95/TSA95V4722.pdf

Try this GAR94_proj_to_2000_Unisex.txt

Probably not significant to your inquiry, but if wife is 54 in 2004, how will she be 59-1/2 in November 2005? I don't really know what is going on here, but it sounds as if someone is asking to violate the terms of the plan and/or the QDRO. Maybe it's just me.

Tax treaties http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations...d=96739,00.html Note that there are three "UK" items. Also, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23621

One hopes that the QDRO already addresses this perhaps with cross reference to the plan document. IMHO, a DRO that does not address this possibility should not be accepted as a QDRO.

Perhaps the issue is not pre- and post-retirement mortality (or interest rates). Proval handles that issue pre- and post-decrement.

Huh?

I'm shocked! Shocked!