david rigby

Oops. I think I should have said The FFC is 73,000 (12,000 + 61.000) minus 170,000 (but not less than zero). Same result.

The equation of balance should never be out of balance. [OK, before you point out the Aggregate method, please see the correct Eq of Bal in Reg. 1.412©(3)-1(b)(1)]. Also, if the UAL becomes negative, you set it equal to zero. Let’s assume you do not mean to use both PUC and UC; one or the other will do. I think the ERISA FFL should be the greater of zero (your ERISA FFL) and 170,000 (90% RPA override). The FFC is 12,000 minus 170,000 (but not less than zero). Don’t wipe out any bases.

IRC Section 404(a)(1)(D). According to the description at the top of the page, as of January 7, 2003. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...=Cite:+26USC404 “D) Special rule in case of certain plans (i) In general. In the case of any defined benefit plan, except as provided in regulations, the maximum amount deductible under the limitations of this paragraph shall not be less than the unfunded current liability determined under section 412(l). (ii) Plans with 100 or less participants. For purposes of this subparagraph, in the case of a plan which has 100 or less participants for the plan year, unfunded current liability shall not include the liability attributable to benefit increases for highly compensated employees (as defined in section 414(q)) resulting from a plan amendment which is made or becomes effective, whichever is later, within the last 2 years. (iii) Rule for determining number of participants. For purposes of determining the number of plan participants, all defined benefit plans maintained by the same employer (or any member of such employer's controlled group (within the meaning of section 412(l)(8)©)) shall be treated as one plan, but only employees of such member or employer shall be taken into account. (iv) Plans maintained by professional service employers. In the case of a plan which, subject to section 4041 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, terminates during the plan year, clause (i) shall be applied by substituting for unfunded current liability the amount required to make the plan sufficient for benefit liabilities (within the meaning of section 4041(d) of such Act).” My copy of the Code is dated January 1, 2004 and is identical to above.

I'll take a contrary position, at least a little (surprise). Ditto the comments about CODA. But there is a more basic issue: why does the plan exist? If the plan sponsor has created this as a capital accumulation plan, then that is why a PS contribution is made in the first place, and changing the design to allow in-service distributions is a very significant change in philosophy. Tread lightly, and change the plan only after the sponsor has considered all the ramifications. If needed, I'm sure my employer can provide some consulting advice.

One or more of these might be your reference: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20562 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15502 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10990

Here is the vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...ote=00068#state

AndyH, The Senate website does not have the vote for the final bill. Do you have a link?

Section 102 of the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004 concerns an “alternative DRC”. Subsection (b) amends IRC 412(l) for this purpose. The new 412(l)(12)© reads as follows: “C) APPLICABLE EMPLOYER- For purposes of this paragraph, the term `applicable employer' means an employer which is-- (i) a commercial passenger airline, (ii) primarily engaged in the production or manufacture of a steel mill product or the processing of iron ore pellets, or (iii) an organization described in section 501©(5) and which established the plan to which this paragraph applies on June 30, 1955.” Can anyone shed some light on (iii)?

I guess we're assuming no other exemptions from ERISA section 4021(b) ?

"...is vacation a sort of qualified plan..."? No. "...can a request by an executive be subjectively denied by a human resources representative?" Apparently so. Sometimes the answer is "rules are rules".

Be sure to check all the exemptions in ERISA section 4021(b).

Good advice. First question might be to see if any of the exemptions may have been available to the plan.

Thanks for the explanation. Approximately, what is the impact? about 100 basis points above current level?

6 months? Sure, please share the logic.

One more question to ask: what do you (realistically) think that $1500 will be worth when you take it out? (Hint: Don't believe any of the hype. One possible answer is $1500.)

Might be some helpful information here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf For example, search for the word "beneficiary", and look on page 25.

Can you make the plan effective 1/1/2004 and have this Q go away?

I'm confused. Are you offsetting the value of one DB 2% accrual by the entire balance in the DC plan?

Ditto. What does the plan say about becoming a participant? If you discover that this person did beocme a participant, watch out for vesting under top heavy rules.

Normally, severance of employment is an event that permits distribution. John should probably check the terms of the plan document. Perhaps the SPD will help also.

In the DB-related DRO's that I see, I continue to hope the order will address the question of death; 4 cases. - if the participant dies first and before any benefit commencement, - if the AP dies first and before any benefit commencement, - if the participant dies first after benefit commencement, - if the AP dies first after benefit commencement.

not govt plans

See ERISA section 103(d)(11)

Anyone can put a paragraph in quotes. When you do so, please offer the source and the (at least approximate) date. I'm not sure the dollar amounts in the above quote are accurate, but there is some validity to the general argument. However, that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion in the last sentence.

I hope no one responds to (1). The information sharing on these Message Boards is too important to risk any accusation of price collusion.