david rigby

If you have any hope of recovering a portion of your outstanding fees, an alternative might be a written suspension of your services, pending payment. Resignation will probably be equivalent to giving up on collecting your receivable.

Sure it can. Vesting service continues, but that does not mean the vesting percentage has to change every year. Check the plan provisions.

There is no IRS requirement that the IRS pre-approve a plan termination, but there might be some requirement in whatever documents are between Principal and the plan/plan sponsor. However, if there is a funding deficiency (or if part of the $200K is a funding deficiency), it seems very unlikely that a "provider" (trustee?) can or would exert any influence that might delay that payment. Careful analysis of the facts is needed. If Principal does not want the money (which I really doubt), it may be possible for the sponsor to create another trust to receive the payment.

Do a search of the message boards for "funding waiver" for some other discussion. A waiver application must be submitted no later than 2-1/2 months after the end of the plan year. IRS has said that deadline is not extendable.

Ball park: If recipient is age 65, multiply the monthly benefit by 128.218. If the recipient is age 50, and the benefit is assumed to start at age 65, multiply by 54.867. Assumptions: 1983 GAM Table (male, not unisex), 5.0%. Obviously, more information is needed to provide a "better ballpark".

What do you mean "...appears to say..."?

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