david rigby

No. Yes. Related discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25060&hl=

I think Katherine is pointing out that the 402(g) limit is an individual one, rather than a plan limit. If the person contributed in two unrelated plans, and exceeded the limit only in total, then neither plan is responsible for "causing" that excess. However, the IRS will find out since the amounts are reported on the W-2. The person can expect a letter from the IRS, but probably not the plan.

I wonder if the remarriage portion might violate the plan provisions.

2007 ?

Brain cramp. Is it correct that the IRS has still not answered the question of what rate in the range you may choose? For example, at 1/1/2004, if I choose 6.55% for 412 current liability, then I cannot choose a rate lower than 5.51% for the UCL under IRC 404? Answered? Maybe?

Doesn't it matter how this happened? For example, if the two plans were from unrelated employers?

I don't pretend to have any expertise in the area of sole proprietors, but this is from the 1999 GrayBook: QUESTION 99-13 Funding: Deduction Limit for Self-Employed A contribution is made to satisfy the minimum funding requirement. Due to net business losses, the contribution cannot be deducted because of 404(a)(8)©, which says contributions fail to satisfy the 162 and 212 requirement if they exceed earned income. Can the deductions be carried over to future years? Can they be deducted up to the earned income limit in each succeeding year as contributions required to meet the minimum funding requirement of a prior plan year, or would a ten-year amortization rule be used? RESPONSE The statute does not appear to accommodate a carryover of the 404(a)(8)© limit to later tax years. Section 4972©(4) exempts such amounts from the 10% excise tax on nondeductible contributions. Copyright © 1999, 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.

Things Dad Would Never Say It's OK that you're late. The curfew is only a suggestion. Well, how 'bout that?... I'm lost! Looks like we'll have to stop and ask for directions. You know Pumpkin, now that you're thirteen, you'll be ready for unchaperoned car dates. Won't that be fun? I noticed that all your friends have a certain "up yours" attitude.... I like that. Here's a credit card and the keys to my new car -- go crazy. What do you mean you wanna play football? Ballet not good enough for you, son? Your Mother and I are going away for the weekend ... you might want to consider throwing a party. Well, I don't know what's wrong with your car. Probably one of those doo-hickey thingies-you know-that makes it run or something. Just have it towed to a mechanic and pay whatever he asks. No son of mine is going to live under this roof without an earring. Now quit your bellyaching, and let's go to the mall. Whaddya wanna go and get a job for? I make plenty of money for you to spend. Here, you hold the remote for a while. Hey, Hon, can I do the dishes tonight? Please? OK, girls, just keep talking. The ballgame will be over in a few minutes. Now that you're 16, hey, feel free to take the car anytime! But Honey, I don't want to go to the hardware store! Let's watch the Lifetime Channel tonight! Does this outfit make me look fat? Boy, that George Clooney is a fantastic actor! Oh, let me iron that for you.

If it were me, and I had already engaged the Plan's legal counsel for advice, I might ask if that counsel would write me an opinion letter stating the facts, including the search process, concluding that the plan had met its requirements, and pay to whatever the next beneficiary is under the terms of the plan (not the terms of the will). BTW, there are plans with a death benefit of zero in the absence of a spouse.

MGB

Revenue Rulings here: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglist/revrulmaster.htm

See my comment above.

Ah. A perfect case for using the British term: "scheme".

I agree with Everett and Andy. However, there is also the issue of following the terms of the plan document. I wonder if there is any precedent that the Plan Administrator can/should find for guidance w/r/t interpretation.

Uhh, what?

Perhaps it is just me, but I have never heard of this standard as the definition of who is (or may be) an employee. Probably based on the nature of the employment relationship, who controls the working hours and conditions, etc. BTW, I thought the question was about active participants.

My understanding of IRC 414(p) is that divorce is not a requirement.

If the facts are: - EE is not terminated (which is similar to, but not exactly the same as "actively employed"), and - EE is "retaining credited service" (see above), then I vote to count them as active participants.

Yeah, what GBurns said. IMHO, it would be surprising if the Union agrees to a spinoff, but go ahead and ask.

Some similar discussions here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8785

You lawyers like long sentences. If I understand your question, I read the regs under 411(d)(6) such that, yes it is a violation, Heinz case not needed for that conclusion. But note, in reading the summary of the Heinz case, I was shocked at what the plan tried to get away with. Perhaps I am oversimplifying.

The SOA has redesigned their website. The new link for the Table Manager is http://www.soa.org/ccm/content/areas-of-pr.../table-manager/

Why do we have required minimum distributions? So that the money in the trust (where it is not taxed) will be paid out, thus becoming taxable income.

I think the statement is that ERISA does not cover the plan. That does not address the issue of what the plan document looks like.

What is meant by this? Is the trust investing its assets? Is there a record of that investment? What is the magnitude of the $ ?