david rigby

1. Probably not advisable to tell them to "liquidate and roll into IRA's." The participant will (generally) be the one who decides where it goes. The plan may already have some language that instructs on the process of plan termination. 2. I don't think the addition of rollovers should impact the amount of employer contribution. Using rollovers to fund employer contribution is an oxymoron.

In direct response to original question: No.

Funny, but really not appropriate for this venue.

WRT recordkeeping fees, be careful, as this discussion notes: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24261

There have been a few discussion threads on this topic. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21669 You can use the Search feature to find others. Probably the Plan Administrator will discuss this with the Plan's counsel, who will then decide whether the claim has any merit, and may then inform the former spouse that the plan is not permitted to honor anything but a QDRO. Don't forget to review the plan provisions on claim procedures.

Sounds like a job for IRS Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-5. By the way, this is GrayBook Q&A 96-33: Nondiscrimination: Change in Vesting Schedule A defined benefit plan with 5 year cliff vesting is amended to provide for 3-year cliff vesting for all participants employed on the date of the amendment. The active participant group satisfies the coverage requirements under §410(b). §1.401(a)(4)-5 [amendments] requires a facts and circumstances review to prove the amendment isn't discriminatory. Specifically, it suggests looking to former employees and making sure that the timing of the amendment did not favor the highly compensated. §1.401(a)(4)-11© [vesting] does not require testing former employees with respect to vesting. To determine whether the amendment complies with §401(a)(4), must the effect on former employees be assessed (i.e., examining the relative number of HCEs and nonHCEs who had terminated during the years prior to the effective date of the amendment and would have benefited under the provisions of the amendment)? RESPONSE Yes. All amendments are subject to 1.401(a)(4)-5. Copyright © 1996, 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.

If no HCE's in the affected group, probably no concern for BRF; just amend the plan.

Do those working less than 1000 hours all work over 500 hours?

Husband and wife?

I think the correct cite is IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A 24. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-.../26cfrv5_02.tpl

It would not be overstated to say that MGB is an excellent resource and contributor. He also offered his name publicly: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...t=0entry79258

Correct. Don't assume such request would not be approved. Lots of examples where EOY is a better choice than BOY.

Not sure about your plan, but in the DB world, I have occassion to look for documents back to the 60s, generally to verify benefit or eligbility of VT's, but sometimes also to verify unusual death or disability provisions. Then there is the case where a former EE gets the letter from the SSA ("you may have a benefit from ..."). If that person is not in your database, it may require old documents to verify anything.

That's the way pork works: don't name the recipient directly, but use some other characteristics to disguise who is on the receiving end.

Rather than "Greyhound", think Tranportation Workers Union (or some similar name).

Ever heard the term "complification"?

It was my understanding that the rate chosen was used for 412 and 404 purposes.

Gray Book 93-9 Quarterly Contributions -- When Higher Interest Stops Accruing The additional charge to the funding standard account on late quarterly contributions is to start accruing on the applicable due date. Ordinarily, the late amounts are contributed before the final contribution due date (i.e., 8-1/2 months after the end of the plan year), in which case the additional interest stops accruing when such contributions are made. However, if those contributions are not made up (which means there will be a deficiency) until after the final contribution due date, does the additional interest charge nevertheless cease at such due date or does it continue on the net amount not paid? RESPONSE The additional interest charge continues to apply up until 8-1/2 months after the end of the plan year. Furthermore, if contributions are not paid by that date (i.e., there is a funding deficiency), this charge increases the funding deficiency which applies as of the end of the plan year (i.e., 8-1/2 months earlier). That accumulated funding deficiency will then begin "earning" interest at the valuation rate. As a result, a double interest charge will apply during the 8-1/2 months following the end of the plan year for which the quarterly contributions were not paid. Copyright © 1993, 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.

Maybe, but no guidance yet.

I think it is Q&A 25. Mike's comment is the most practical.

Rev. Proc. 2000-40, section 5.02.

1. That is the way I read Rev. Proc. 2000-40. 2. In Q&A 90-15 from the Gray Book, the IRS said there is no guidance, but reasonable procedures would likely not cause any problems. Can’t recall any specifics since then. You may also want to review Q&A 97-4 and 2001-18. If i were doing this, my procedure would be to reflect changes chronologically, if possible. Thus, if the plan had been amended 2 months before the val date, then that comes first (but I might have some flexibility on that). Caution: don’t forget to review the restrictions in Section 6 of the Rev. Proc.

Probably very obvious, but a separate account may make it easier to send a correct 1099 to the alternate payee.

Here is some information: http://www.plansponsor.com/pi_type10/?RECORD_ID=25215

DOL publications on QDRO's. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html