david rigby

Might be; have not heard that one. You might tyr a search at Thomas I have heard of proposals to exempt the first $X (such as $2000) from federal income tax if that is part of an annuity. Probably very little chance for passage since it is a direct "cost" to tax revenues.

I suggest the answer is NO. Prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21554

The plan could define "normal retirment age" in a manner that might permit such distributions, but that would already be described in the SPD.

On this link, http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96450,00.html, I think the 2004 columns have been reversed from prior years (2001 and before).

Many prior discussion threads have referenced the EOB. We all agree it is excellent. However, I'm surprised an IRS agent would admit to using it. Might be a story there.

You should read IRS Publications 575 and 590 http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/lists/0,,id=97817,00.html BTW, call 1-800-tax-form to order a paper copy.

Not aware of anything for free. This link might give you a start. http://www.plansponsor.com/magazine_type1/?RECORD_ID=10487 Beware, the link at the end of the article no longer works, so try here for a contact: http://www.cba.gsu.edu/news/01/retirement.html

I think the answer is "not covered". Within the past year, there has been a similar discussion thread on this topic. Try the Search feature.

Which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread!

Not enough facts. You say "cashed out". Does this mean - "converted to a cash balance plan" or - (more likely) "terminated the plan and offered participants a cash distribution"? Just as importantly, what is your basis for suspecting the value is "far lower than the value that I should have received..."?

Probably just what the plan says. Sounds like the the plan is not doing anything to prohibit the participant from exercising his rights, or to violate its own terms.

Who is us? Perhaps the original post means the employer intended and implemented a change but never told anyone who could/would document it. If so, check to see if there really is documentation, such as minutes of a Borad meeting. Might not be enough, but check anyway. BTW, are actual deferrals impacted by this "change"?

Certain plan provisions are not clear in the original post. I thought a plan could utilize different early retirement reduction factors for: - those who retire (directly from active service) and - those who terminate vested, later aging into early retirement eligibility. Is that relevant in your situation?

Interesting. Seems doubtful that the plan allows the participant to restore only part of the non-vested amount previously forfeited.

See "Congress" "There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators." Will Rogers

FWIW, the IRS has issued a new Revenue Procedure on applications for waiver of minimum funding. http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2004-15.pdf

Currently, no version modifies the 417 rate. Look again; they all modify ERISA Section 4006(a)(3)(E) to determine the PBGC variable premium liability.

If you want to read the versions, search here http://thomas.loc.gov/ for HR3108.

Searched where? My first guess would be PLRs. Perhaps DOL regs?

Maybe this will help: http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ Scroll down to 4.71 I wonder exactly what the request means; to the IRS, the Schedule B is the actuarial report.

Likely this has happened before, and the question has already been answered. (Unfortunately, I'm not sure where to look for confirmation.)

Likely most Red Sox and Yankee fans will fail to understand this, but the rest of the world does not care about your rivalry.

I agree with Mike.

Probably want to be consistent. Look to prior practice for precedent?

IRS publication 590 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf See page 13 for this comment: "Benefits from previous employer’s plan. If you receive retirement benefits from a previous employer’s plan, you are not covered by that plan."