david rigby

Possible? Yes. Amend the plan. But watch out for 411(d)(6). If the plan is integrated with SS, watch out for 401(l) safe harbors. Advisable? That's a different issue. An alternative might be to make sure the definition of averaging (over X years) will "bridge" the two periods of service.

Precedent? either way? Plan provisions?

Meant to contribute 5% but actually contributed 15%? Is it just me, or is that difficult to believe?

A few other discussions on this topic. You might try the Search feature. Just one example: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23760

After further thought, I believe the issue of different ages is more important than gender differences, which can be "handled" by a unisex table. But, as MGB states, the QDRO might need more clarification.

Don't forget that the QDRO cannot require an increase in the value of total payments. But who pays for this "adjustment" might be covered by the QDRO, or should be.

Would this help? http://www.pbgc.gov/participantnotice/default.htm

Gray Book 1995 QUESTION 12 Funding -- Quarterly Contributions and Funding Deficiencies If a deficiency is carried forward in the FSA. and the quarterly contribution more than suffices to pay off both the deficiency and current charges, can the quarterly contribution requirement be reduced? For example, suppose the minimum contribution for the 1994 calendar plan year (determined at year-end) was as follows: $100,000 Funding deficiency from 1993 $ 80,000 Normal cost $ 20,000 Amortization charges less amortization credits $200,000 Total The employer contributes $200,000 prior to 4/15/95 (the due date for the first 1995 quarterly installment). May the required quarterly installments for 1995 be 25% of the lesser of (i) the 1994 charges less credits, excluding the funding deficiency at the beginning of 1994 (e.g., 25% of ($80,000 + $20,000) = $25,000) or (ii) 90% of the 1995 minimum (with the appropriate interest adjustments)? RESPONSE: This issue is covered by Q4 and Q7 in IRS Notice 89-52. Specifically, it is clear that in calculating the 1995 quarterly contribution requirement, the 1994 minimum must include any outstanding 1993 deficiency unpaid by September 15, 1994, (i.e., 25% of $200,000 = $50,000). However, in determining 90% of the 1995 minimum, Notice 89-52 provides that the 1995 quarterly requirement can initially ignore any cumulative outstanding 1994 deficiency. If the deficiency is not eliminated by September 15, 1995, all of the 1995 quarterly amounts must be recalculated reflecting the unpaid 1994 deficiency. Copyright © 1995, 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.

I have done a couple of waivers where I included the interest penalty in the amount requested. If a waiver need not include any interest penalty, that seems equivalent to granting the waiver "as of" the first quarterly due date. I see that as inconsistent with the concept of a waiver. Might be other valid perspectives.

Discriminatory for the employer to bear expenses? Have not heard that one before.

Does the plan permit a change in the form of distribution after commencment date? Not common.

A zillion.

Just be careful how you calculate the PVAB.

Not sure. You could probably do it that way, but I doubt it would be a simple amendment. It goes to the heart of how the benefit formula is designed. It would work more easily if the benefit is defined on each year's comp, rather than FAC (that is, your suggestion does not fit the usual definition of FAC). If you have SS integration that is intended to be safe harbor, be careful of the rules under IRS reg. 1.401(l).

See prior answers.

Who would they make a TH minimum for? The TH rules provide minimums for Non-Key EEs.

Absolutely. However, many definitions of FAC will not address this. Then, look for precedent. Finally, consider amending the plan.

Are we assuming the plan has been amended for 415 as far as possible? COLA? (Yes, this probably only helps with annual payments, but, as suggested earlier, it might be a great intermediate step.)

Have you tried saying "NO"?

I am looking for survey information related to investment mix of defined benefit plans. Any suggestions or links? Thanks.

Well, who gets a TH minium is the second issue. The first problem is who is in which group, just to perform the test. Worry first about whether the test is correct.

Here ya go! QUESTION 2004-27 Nondiscrimination: Accrual Rate for Participants in Frozen Plan Controlled Group A has multiple pension plans. Plans 1, 2 and 3 are active DB plans with participants who currently accrue benefits. Plan 4 is a frozen DB plan that does not adjust benefits to reflect current service or compensation (hard freeze). Plan 3 fails the IRC 410(b) ratio test. Thus, the DB plans are combined to pass coverage. Accrued to date testing is used for general nondiscrimination testing and for the average benefits percentage test (ABPT). For the accrued to date method, in the case of participants in plan 4, should the accrual rate be determined by dividing the frozen accrued benefit by service and pay at the freeze date or at the end of the testing year? RESPONSE If a participant is not currently “benefiting” because there are no current changes in service or compensation taken into account other than for reasons specified in the regulations, then the participant is not taken into account at all for general testing. Only participants who are benefiting are considered. For the ABPT, all employees are considered without regard to whether they are benefiting. For a participant with a frozen accrued benefit who is not currently benefiting, testing service does not change merely because the participant continues in service. However, average compensation is required to reflect years until termination of employment. Copyright © 2004, 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.

Whether a TH minimum is given to Key EEs is a function of the plan document, not the statute. The bigger issue, which Blinky alluded to, is that the TH test must be done according to how the statute defines a Key EE. If this plan throws a few "extras" in the TH test, it may or may not affect the result.

Correct. The Lorentz contraction.

Was does "get" mean, at least in the terms of the QDRO? That is, does it specify (and plan permit) immediate payment? Or is it merely requiring the segregation of the account? One possible result is that the QDRO is not specific enough for the PA to interpret it.