david rigby

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 $ ?

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.