david rigby

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

In general, the plan will define when a distribution is permissible. Tax laws and regulations will define how (and when) it is taxed. See IRS Publications 575 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf and 590 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf Before making a distribution, the employer is (probably) required to provide a special notice that gives an overview of how it will be taxed. You can get a headstart by ordering the above publications (1-800-tax-form).

It might be simpler to fix in the subsequent paycheck.

There are probably some unanswered questions here. This plan administrator should hire a competent pension actuary, who will know the right questions to ask. As luck would have it, many of us are contributors to these Message Boards. Another source of information, no surprise, is our friendly neighborhood webmaster, who has created http://www.benefitslink.com/yellowpages/actuary.shtml

Blinky, to be precise, the word is "sucks". Several prior uses, which we leave to the user for searching.

That is my interpretation, that the 412 minimum could be larger, but in such case, the Unfunded CL is even larger, making the former meaningless.

Section 101(b)(5) of PFEA is "(5) ELECTION TO DISREGARD MODIFICATION FOR DEDUCTION PURPOSES- Section 404(a)(1) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: `(F) ELECTION TO DISREGARD MODIFIED INTEREST RATE- An employer may elect to disregard subsections (b)(5)(B)(ii)(II) and (l)(7)©(i)(IV) of section 412 solely for purposes of determining the interest rate used in calculating the maximum amount of the deduction allowable under this paragraph.'." Some debate in our office about this. Some say it means only that the unfunded current liability (for purposes of 404) can be calculated using the "old rules". Others say that it also means you can recalulate the minimum solely for the purpose of determining whether it is larger than the (otherwise determined) maximum. Comments?

Why?

Most likely a distribution should not be made. However, the plan provisions are more important than my opinion. You don't say whether the EE actually requested a distribution. If not, then rehired, it is very unlikely the plan would permit such a distribution now.

Use this link to search. http://thomas.loc.gov/ Based on the current wording, I don't see any direct impact on DB plans. There might be some indirect impact.

Permissible? Fees are ususally set by competition and negotiation between the parties.

Try IRS Publication 590, available by calling 1-800-tax-form. I believe rollover rights extend to the spouse but not to other beneficiaries.

"Withholding notice"? Is anyone confusing garnishment with QDRO?

Not sure I understand the question. What numbers are you playing around with? How did you arrive at your estimate?

3.14 to 1. Obviously.