david rigby

Instructions to Schedules H and I (only) include "Round off all amounts ... to the nearest dollar." Anyone with experience to determine if this is literal? Can amounts be rounded to nearest $100 or $1000? Can I round on other schedules? (especially Schedule B)?

Perhaps the Department of Labor for your state of residence?

Some earlier discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23311

I'm not aware of any requirement that a salary assumption must always be in the form of X% per year. Although usually trouble than it is worth, there is no theoretical reason that the salary assumption could not be "select and ultimate." Still have the requirement of IRC 412©(3).

Try the "More Options" tab. Then make sure you look at all the paramters carefully, choose key words carefully, use phrases in quotation marks, and narrow down the forum(s).

HR3108. No action in conference committee, although some discussion has been held. Note that the proposal would change the definition of the iterest rate, but does not change the "85% of prior month" characteristic.

Really? Has it been verified that the other time of employment does not already constitute the "waiting period"? I suppose the union would not want that disincentive to join the bargaining class of employees; is it covered in the CBA?

Could be problematic. - Perhaps wing it? - Calculate the amount at 1/1/04 but begin amortization at 1/1/05? (Probably not kosher.) - Cross your fingers that no one would do a window without already being in full funding? (No such luck.) - Calculate the liability change and the asset change (separately) at 1/1/04, add them to values at 1/1/05, then determine the UAL?

Somewhat surprising. I have worked with 3-4 attorneys I would recommend.

... but it is common to combine them.

Does those future salaries match your assumption for future salary? If your question is about comp that exceeds the 401(a)(17) limit, then whether you include it is a part of your method.

To the best of my knowledge, it is not common. However, it probably happens indirectly in some cases. Some prior discussions that might be relevant: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20880 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13390 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20684 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21732 DOL Field Assistance Bulletin, specifically relating to DC plans. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2003-3.html

The other link in the "deemed cashout" issue is that the plan has provisions to require distribution where possible (that is, under $5000) and actually does so in practice. I think this would include partially vested or fully vested terminations.

No such experience, but seems reasonable to assume that PBGC negotiators will not be "easy".

Or discuss with one of the companies that does such administration, to determine costs as well as administrative duties. Some of them are listed here: http://www.benefitslink.com/yellowpages/cafeteri.shtml

I think your plan has to specify "deemed cashouts". (BTW, if so, it should also include "deemed repayments" language if the person is rehired.) Back to the original question. Looks like two separate events. If you have a partial termiantion, then that should trigger 100% vesting for affected participants. A plan termination in the next year would trigger 100% vesting of affected participants at that time. I think you should treat "to the extent funded" as meaning "as if the plan were then terminated". Others may have different opinions.

MGB is correct. It might be technically possible but virtually inconceivable for a Distress Termination or an involuntary termination to occur without bankruptcy. This does not mean "liquidation in bankruptcy" but will almost certainly involve a formal declaration. Legal counsel is essential.

Gray Book Q&A 95-1 Retirement Protection Act Funding -- Mortality Basis The RPA requires the Secretary to prescribe a mortality table based on the “prevailing commissioners standard table” in IRC 807(d)(5)(A) (currently the 1983 GAM Table) for purposes of current liability calculations when determining the additional funding charge under IRC 412(l). (a) Will the prescribed table be limited to the 1983 GAM Table or will some leeway be allowed; for example, will one be allowed to use a mortality table that is at least as conservative as 1983 GAM Table? Will rates be sex distinct or unisex and, in either case, how will they be derived? (b) For some plans, actuaries have been assuming no mortality prior to retirement. Will they be able to continue to do this for current liability purposes, or must they include the required mortality table and explicitly value pre-retirement death benefits? © If the actuary’s best estimate of the mortality of participants in the plan is not the 1983 GAM Table, may the 1983 GAM Table be used for regular 412(b) funding if the actuary believes that the added accuracy does not justify the additional valuation fees? (d) When determining the current liability for an active employee, the actuary assumes rates of disability and values a separate disability benefit. Employees assumed to become disabled and entitled to the disability benefit are thereafter subject to a special disabled life mortality table. Will it be acceptable in 1995 to continue to use such disabled life mortality table? Can the table to be prescribed by the Secretary of Treasury be used after 1995? RESPONSE: (a) One specific version of the 1983 GAM Table will be required, without provision for using a more conservative table. When the decision has been made as to what the prescribed table is, including whether or not it is unisex, the IRS will issue detailed guidance. (b) The mandated version of the 1983 GAM Table must be used whenever mortality is called for in the current liability calculation. If no preretirement mortality is used in the regular 412(b) funding valuation, that approach can be carried over into the current liability calculation. © The actuary must be willing to certify that the mortality assumption used in the 412(b) funding valuation is “reasonable,” as defined in IRC 412©(3). If the actuary cannot make that certification with respect to the 1983 GAM Table, it cannot be used for 412(b) funding purposes. (d) The same RPA rules apply to the use of disabled life mortality rates in calculating current liability for those who are already disabled and after assumed disablement for currently active participants. Copyright © 1995, 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.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations...d=96739,00.html

I doubt that "negative net worth" is an exemption to "liable". But, the result appears to mean zero dollars are available to go after. However, there might be another direction, which the PBGC calls an "involuntary termination", not much different from a Distress Termination, except that the former is initiated by the PBGC. The plan sponsor's bankruptcy attorney should be talking to the PBGC; they have a legal staff kept busy by such events.

To the best of my knowledge, ERISA does not override state laws that determine income subject to state taxation.

You've got to be kidding! Most users already have a pseudonym.

The other fact is that someone has to bear the expense of a divorce (sham or not) and the QDRO, in order to avoid the 10% excise tax.

How will we recognize each other? Oh, we're the geeks!

At first I thought it would be inappropriate to ascribe coherency to an IRS reg, but it might fit. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...26/26tab_02.tpl