david rigby

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

State tax laws may vary.

Just some thoughts: Can the sponsor hold it's board meeting in the bathtub? Are HCE's impacted by the "certain benefit features"? Certainly the attorney or the consultant advised the sponsor that this "promise" requires a plan amendment? in advance?

Maybe, but it might be more important to see what the plan says. The facts in the original post appear to be what the regulatory requirement is for vesting service (which applies to employees, not participants), but may not be required for other types of service.

Comparison of provisions from Joint Tax Committee 03/05/04: http://www.house.gov/jct/x-17-04.pdf

IRC 411(d)(6) applies to participants, not to employees.

http://www.plansponsor.com/pi_type10/?RECORD_ID=24469

Currently in the Joint Tax Committee. However, their current focus is on a different bill, so don't expect action for a while.

This should probably be part of a written policy, so that you adhere to your timeframe for all participants.

Perhaps its just me, but I don't draw that conclusion from the postings, only that there are a few opinions not in opposition. A true judgment of "appropriate" might require more thorough sampling, and inspection of actual products.

Pretty good Demo. However, I suspect that your answer has nothing to do with the original question, which probably was inquiring about state and local government plans.

I see no "compelling reasons", just practicalities. Perhaps I am misreading your situation; are you suggesting waiting until the window closes in order to have a final value, or are you suggesting the possibility of including the window now with an estimated value? My initial preference is to wait until I know the value of any amendment before I try to amortize it. But if you are using the Aggregate method, and are comfortable with a good estimate, it might be OK to include it right away. However, the issue also gets at the definition of your funding method. If you have a census snapshot, then using data collected after that date might violate your method.

To us non-lawyers, the law would be better if this were a recognized legal term.

What neighborhood are we in here? What are ages of plan participants?

OK. I don't see anything amiss. However, always possible other facts could be relevant. For example, when B "assumed A's plans with respect to employees of the subsidiary" caution is needed with respect to terminology. Was there a separate (stand-alone) plan for the subsidiary? alternatively, a spinoff from the A plan? If neither, was there a transfer of assets from A plan to B plan? If so, there is likely to be plan language (maybe even language in the buy-sell agreement) that guides. The title of your posting also raises some questions about whether this might be a multi-employer situation, or a multiple-employer situation, or neither. Others can probably contribute more questions.