david rigby

IRS Publication 590. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf Start on page 11.

This website is a great starting point for articles, referrals, publications, etc. Click the logo in the upper left corner to search the entire website. A simple approach is to get some quotes from reputable insurance companies, using the best estimate of the full account balance, expected date of "purchase" and expected date of annuity commencement. Then compare to withdrwals from IRA. See tables in this IRS publication: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf. (Call 1-800-tax-form to get a copy.)

One or both plans may already have some co-ordination provisions; no action needed.

Obviously, you don't have enough work.

Please clarify what would such a "rider" do?

I believe the 12/15/04 date refers to requirements for the 2003 plan year, which should have been made no later than 9/15/04, assuming a CY plan year. If not cumbersome, and if the Plan Administrator agrees, I put the actual amounts and dates of contributions, but it does not seem to be required. Usually, the PA does not want to encourage more questions, so giving that information in the notice might help.

I don't know what this means, but I hope it does not refer to the TPA deciding whether a DRO is qualified.

I agree with Alf. This can be fixed prospectively, but the proposed retroactive fix likely will violate the terms of the plan and 411(d)(6).

Perhaps. I suggest the sponsor should have a conversation with its ERISA attorney first. The attorney will initiate the "interaction" with the IRS.

What does this mean? He is not employed "under a plan". Just because the employer is acquired, that does not mean anything changes with respect to the plan.

Facts and circumstances. Given the statements as presented (still to be determined if they are facts), IMHO, the answer is “probably”. But circumstances change; difficult to determine in advance, and without more information. Several prior discussion threads on this topic. You might try reviewing: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...ation%26quot%3B

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).