david rigby

Floor offset?

Really? Failure to complete a beneficiary designation is a forfeiture of benefits? Are you sure?

I've done this a few times. I use the PV assumptions in the plan, as they would apply for purposes other than lump sums (assuming the plan has such a distinction). Other reasonable methods might be a current liability calculation, or an ABO. However, I prefer not to use an interest rate that is variable. Others may have the opposite opinion. In all cases, any response to this question will be in writing and very strong caveats are important.

Isn't the first question whether the employer can unilaterally change an employment relationship to "contract"?

I think OK has recently passed a statute on this as well. IMHO, the ERISA pre-emption that some claim is likely to become a non-issue. As more states join this cause, Congress will be forced to act (not that I'm claiming that is a good thing).

Either the plan provision exists or it doesn't. If it's there, the QDRO can take advantage of it, if the parties agree.

... and the existence of the loan will probably also create another deduction from the employee's paycheck to repay the loan. That deduction is after-tax. There is no possibility of "directing" the deferral to pay the loan. I like MGB's summary: preposterous.

What is the logic that comes to this conclusion?

The TH status for 2004 is determined as of the last day of the prior plan year.

Several categories here http://benefitslink.com/yellowpages/ may have companies who can be engaged as a subcontractor.

Did the prior MPP also permit a lump sum to the surviving spouse? If the sponsor wants to permit a lump sum to the spouse, why not amend the plan to add that option?

If this includes the 10% excise tax on a funding deficiency, it will not go away. If the 100% excise tax is also included, it might go away if you can present the reasons why it happened (and reasons why it won't happen again because your procedures have been improved). If they are assessing other penalties, there might be some room for negotiation. You might also look thru the IRS records of various disaster relief to see if any might apply.

See FASB statement no. 132, as revised in December 2003. Try www.fasb.org

True, but short-term cash flow may be relevant.

Let's say it is almost impossible to get the 10% waived, since it is statutory. Exceptions would be from disaster relief (such as 9/11). However, more generally, getting the IRS to modify its sanction may depend on why the penalty is being imposed in the first place. More analysis would be needed.

Maybe. The false SSN may have provided a plan entry date that the illegal would not have attained otherwise. There are numerous examples of illegals re-using SSNs. If the SSN is the only identifier, abuse happens.

Lots of prior discussion threads. Try the Search.

Maybe. The employer may have multiple documents for that social security number, but that does not mean they all have the same signature.

If I understand the plan design implied, you are stating that a surviving spouse cannot get a lump sum (except perhaps under $5000), but another beneficiary could (if there is no spouse). Is this a correct description? Do we need to point out the "awkwardness" (to use a polite term) of that plan design? BTW, is this a DB plan? The many qualified attorneys who frequent these Boards may point out that even if a plan pays a lump sum to a minor beneficiary, it will be paid for that beneficiary, not merely to the guardian. (Don't forget the difference between a guardian of a minor and a guardian of the minor's estate/money.)

You might visit Carol Calhoun's website at www.benefitsattorney.com

Try again. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23859

How about bullet points of eligibility, contribution, vesting (oh, you just said that), tax savings, investment options. Each of these will / should generate more discussion.

pmacduff gave the most likely answer. Other variations are possible. Of course, the correct answer is contained in his suggestion to check the plan document.

The only "guidance" I know of is from the 2002 GrayBook, which is referenced in this discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24115

Potential? Sure. How about "benefit, rights, and features"?