david rigby

We're talking about the government here?

I agree with Blinky (OK, on this one, not always). There have been some prior discussion threads on this. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23415 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2400 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=1259 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12007 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5234

Careful. IRC 404(a)(7) refers to the minimum required contribution for the DB plan.

... except for SS taxable income. And Pennsylvania. See, there are exceptions.

Similar Question: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24942 However, I think that church plans would not be subject to the same rules.

ERISA section 105©.

Now, hold on! I take issue with "necromancy" (I had to look it up).

I love that phrase.

Ditto. Ditto.

Some sources of information: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations...d=96739,00.html http://www.irs.gov/publications/p597/index.html

... and a "partial termination" may have occurred. In order to make that determination, more facts are needed, especially the total number of active participants in the plan (before and after the transaction). However, not to beat a dead horse, but when you say "...seperating (sic) the bought out company...", is this merely a separation of employment, or has there been a "spin-off" (of the plan, not of the company)?

Terminology can be important. Exactly what do you mean by "partial plan termination"?

Why not? If the decision is outside the plan, are you suggesting the plan sponsor may be subject to a claim of discrimination?

Pretty big topic! You might also try reviewing some other sites for "hot" topics, such as ERIC or American Benefits Council. Perhaps then you will find a way to refine your scope. Long-term care (LTC) is getting some press lately (but that is not an endorsement).

If the 402(g) limit was exceeded on one plan, that may increase the chances of an audit.

If she receives a 1099, is she really an employee? eligible to participate in the plan? The $41K dollar limit is pretty good, but don't forget the 100% limitation.

Fair enough. Thanks.

I found historical monthly average rates for Moody's AAA and Baa bonds here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm (near the end of the table) I found historical rates for the last business day of the month for Moody’s AA bonds here: http://www.soa.org/ccm/cms-service/stream/...&g11n.enc=UTF-8 (click on “moody_agreement.html”) Anyone have a link to AA monthly averages?

Could the desired result be obtained by employing the person as a contract employee? "gross-up" the pay for FICA?

Don't forget the deferral limit is individual, not related to employer(s), controlled group, etc.

So many issues and variables. You don't give any specifics about your situation, but descriptions of the TSP can be found here: http://www.tsp.gov/ These Message Boards do not exist to provide investment advice, but many users may be able to provide some general concerns and perspectives for you to consider, if you choose to share any more details. (Always be careful about how much information you share online.) Most likely, the first piece of advice will be to read all the material you have been given on the TSP.

Sounds like difficulty in determining proper funding, also. Might be a classic example of why you should not design a plan this way.

Should we presume that the plan's provisions have been reviewed, especially with respect to defining a beneficiary, or successor beneficiary?

I'm no expert, but I have seen several QDRO's that do this. Where do you think the order is providing "increased benefits"?

I agree with MGB's assessment. And "retirees" may also be considered involuntary separation of employment. So, we are back to facts and circumstances. BTW, the IRS presumes all affected employees are involuntarily terminated until proven otherwise. Burden of proof is on the employer. Probably the only easy ones are deaths. Thus, recommendation from JanetM above may be the result. Consider the cost of vesting vs. the cost of proving your case.