david rigby

1971 GAM here: http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1970-79...V23PT1N6724.pdf This paper also introduced Projection Scales D and E.

This file is labeled in our system as "T-10", but I do not have original source to verify that. T10.txt

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13240

In general, I agree with Jay. More importantly than what you mean by "...8/12th of my yearly benefit...", how does the plan define an accrual for a plan year?

Doesn't that simply mean the employee got a raise? Getting a raise probably is not cause for re-selecting your 125 deferrals. Probably won't impact anyone here because we don't get raises.

Possibly this is "fine-tuning" permitted under the method. IMHO, choosing either will not violate Approval 15 or the Rev. Proc., as long as you document it and apply consistently. However, in my experience, option (1) is what I have done and seen. Can't think of a single real occurrence of (2).

Possible choices might be - whatever mortality table underlies the plan's optional factors, - the table in effect under 417(e), - some table that might be mandated under state law (assuming the fireman is employed by a governmental unit), - some version of the RP2000 table, paying attention to the discussion on "collar". Perhaps check the SOA table manager.

Prudent standards would presumably apply to all investments made by the plan.

Interesting discussion. From this non-lawyer, it seems the case has promising circumstantial evidence, but not very strong actual evidence. The "witness" may not be credible, and/or may be shown to have a "grudge".

No dispute with Katherine's response.; to clairfy, I beleive the requirement is to add the acquired group into the testing for coverage. It does not require, per se, that the acquired group be covered by the plan. Also, the referenced code section does not say anything about an "18 month acquisition rule."

Sounds like it is related to the financial statement of the sponsor not the plan. I would defer to the sponsor's auditor.

I'm no expert, but it sounds like you have two things going on: - if an incorrect amount was credited to an account (not "deposited"), then fix the recordkeeping; - if an incorrect amount was tranmitted to the trust by the plan sponsor (that is, "deposited"), can it be fixed by netting the excess against the next deposit? Might be other issues.

By now means exhaustive, this website contains some listings of professionals: http://benefitslink.com/yellowpages/attorney.html You may also benefit by contacting a local or state lawyer referral service.

...except that you should remember that the PWBA has a new name: Employee Benefits Security Administration. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/

Is the amount significant enough to engage a lawyer? Would it be vested? I'm no expert, but I thought that once you submit a resignation, it is the employer's decision whether to honor your request for a "last day of employment".

Actually, it is possible to have a smoothed asset value in the determination of the FAS expense. Called "market-related value." However, it is not the norm, nor is it likely that an auditor will approve changing from market value to market-related value. For funding processes, the decision to use an asset smoothing technique is between the actuary and the plan sponsor, not the auditor.

Terminology is important. "Expense" usually refers to the charge a plan sponsor makes on its financial records for the year. This is separate from the cash contribution made to the plan's trust fund. The latter is bounded by the minimum required, as determined primarily under Internal Revene Code Section 412, and the maximum deductible amount, as determined under IRC section 404. (That is, ERISA and the tax laws are concerned with cash contributions, particularly minimums and maximums, not with what shows up on the company books.) The expense (NPPC) is determined under SFAS No. 87, and is (generally) not concerned with the actual cash contribution. The explanation can go on for hours (days). If you have more specific questions, please post.

"I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you."

Sorry, no direct experience, but would not your choice(s) depend on the terms of the annuity contract? Does it have any guarantees? true life contingency? joint life status? minimums? finite time period? etc.

My recollection is that the UP 94 table is related to the 94GAR table, probably by a margin. The table in Rev. Ruling 2001-62 is not quite either. It is "...based upon a fixed blend of 50 percent of the unloaded male mortality rates and 50 percent of the unloaded female mortality rates underlying the mortality rates in the 94 GAR, projected to 2002..."

I have used 8 at least once in the past, but (now that you put me on the spot) I'm not sure it is correct, especially in light of this sentence on page 26 of the instructions: "Code 9 includes mortality tables other than those listed in Codes 1 through 8, including any unisex version of the 1983 G.A.M. table."

Hmmm. My current employer has just such a program.

Since Effen shared a table with me, I will post it here for others. I do not know the source, but it is described (loosely) as the 100% Male/Female UAW Disability Table. MF_UAW_Disability_table.txt

This just begs for "what does the document say?" If the plan only permits a lump sum, it might be "difficult" to follow the terms of the plan by paying installments, no matter how far apart they are spaced. If any portion is rolled to IRA, that will have RMD also, whether or not the plan payment is 100%. Sounds like the participant is asking the plan to help with tax planning, which might not be a path the Administrator would like to go down.

How about an incentive? If the EE meets certain criteria (weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.) then the EE cost of medical insurance and/or life insurance is reduced. (Methinks these are called "wellness programs".)