david rigby

You could always ask to see his Enrollment Certificate. Better yet, ask to see his letter from the JBEA notifying him that his enrollment status has been renewed. The most recent one should be dated in March (approx) of 2002. Blinky, it may be that all EA's are listed, but since there are some without other affiliation, I don't know how they are reported, or who would do so. Remember that the Actuarial Directory was orginally a compilation of all members of the various actuarial organinzations. Some EA's still don't have an affiliation (unfortunately).

That is the correct location for a search. However, there may be some EA's with no other actuarial certification or affiliation who are not listed on the Actuarial Directory.

Reg. here: http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ebsa/Title_2...2530.200b-2.htm

Pardon my simple mind, but a fee is a fee. If it is deducted from an account (or all accounts), then it reduces the account.

http://thomas.loc.gov/ In the first box, enter HR3108.

Does husband want to tell the judge "no I won't sign"? Can I be there to watch?

As far as I know, the PBGC notification is the only required one. It was my impression that a DB plan termination without proper notification, and without waiting for the 60-day no action period, is not a termination at all, and the plan appears to have made distributions that may not be authorized. The plan may have even violated its own terms by not notifying PBGC. Get thee to an experienced ERISA attorney.

Cart before the horse. What does the plan sponsor want to accomplish by having a(ny) plan? What level of benefit/contribution? What commitment is the sponsor willing to make? How many other EEs are/may be covered? Short term? Long term? What level/type of admin expenses is the sponsor expecting? willing to pay? have the plan pay? Who benefits by any particular action (the "investment rep" for example)? This is not necessarily a deal breaker, but just remember that certain solutions may be better for advisors. Need some analysis of demographics. May need to include the sponsor's auditor if the level of deduction is a driving force. Competive concerns, perhaps geographically, or industry? The list goes on and on.

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.