david rigby

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".)

Just what is "something"? Facts please. Many prior examples of specific benefits / coverage added to plans, with the resulting cost much higher than the "estimate". The utilization and anti-selection components will be higher than anybody's estimates. The only question is "by how much?"

That would be great. (Or post them as an attachment to a message.) Thanks.

Thanks. As Tom pointed out, the title of this thread is "Elapsed time" but it may be that the plan document really does impose some hours requirement. Absent that information, we seem to be assuming it has none.

I'm looking for a morbidity table known as the "UAW Table", for determining rates of disablement. Can you provide or steer me to a link? (I did not see it on the SOA website.)

Generally, - your services (actuarial, recordkeeping, compliance, trust, legal, etc.), - your abilities / credentials, - references, - etc.

Well, it has to do with what is the proper NC. If the plan is frozen, then the NC can reflect that, can it not? (OK, yes it may depend on when the plan freeze is adopted.)

That's what I was wondering also.

Another example of why no plan should be terminated without also freezing accruals.