david rigby

See IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4 Q&A-1 d) Benefits that are not section 411(d)(6) protected benefits. The following benefits are examples of items that are not section 411(d)(6) protected benefits: … (5) The right to make after-tax employee contributions or elective deferrals described in section 402(g)(3); http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

Lawyers? Multiply?

You lawyers like when the rest of us have to get out the dictionary.

Perhaps you meant that you have been an "independent consultant" during the three years after you left the prior company? In general, you should consider the same things anyone would consider in a job search: compensation, benefits, job duites, work environment, opportunity for advancment. Of course that is obvious, but if the job otherwise interests you, getting some "recognition" for the prior service is just a bonus, such as vacation seniority. Assuming you were a common-law employee and were covered under a qualifed pension or profit-sharing plan, being gone for only 3 years is good, because you may qualify for certain "reinstatment". Since many details are still unknown, that term is used very loosely. Need more info. For example, did you receive a distribution from any qualified plan.

Not intending to put words in his mouth, my hunch is that QDROphile's succinct comment agrees with the sentiment he expressed here: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22038

Might need to carefully review what you mean by "...frozen in 2003..." I believe that EGTRRA changed the rules so that frozen DB plans need not provide additional TH accruals. Probably some other discussion can be located with the Search feature. For example, http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20512

Why?

Multiple IRA's? Sure. The restriction is on the amount of annual contribution among all such accounts. But beware, multiple IRA's will probably lead to multiple administrative charges.

11.00

What is the question?

As an actuary, I review DROs that pertain to DB plans. If possible, I request the DRO specifically address all four of the permutations; what happens if: - the EE dies first before commencment, - if the AP dies first before commencment, - the EE dies first after commencement, - the AP dies first after commencement. Frankly, it is difficult to get an order to be that specific.

Under 4.01(5), a frozen plan can change its funding method to UC. But read the language carefully. Section 4.02 deals with terminating plans, not frozen plans. This should not restrict the change in asset method.

Find a Revenue Ruling. http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglist/revrulmaster.htm

Ditto. To the orginal post, if you have some doubt, please refer to the thread referenced by WDIK, and then use the Search feature to find several discussion threads that say the same thing: bad plan drafting and/or bad plan administration. Since the year is not over yet, there may be time to fix it.

If the incorrect plan name cannot be confused with another, then I vote for the use of common sense. The plan's QDRO procedures might already permit this.

You must not have much to do today. This paragraph is similar to (but not exactly like) pre-ERISA language in IRC 404(a)(1)(B). Also see pre-ERISA reg. 1.404(a)-5 (last amended 1/19/61). I have no idea why it exists, other than to assume it was a response to some specific situation/abuse, but what do you think? You can submit it for the GrayBook, but don't expect a response.

Probably not an ERISA question. Advise seeking competent legal advise with corporate counsel.

You can get IRS Publication here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p571.pdf or by calling 1-800-tax-form. See the first paragraph on the front page: the maximum exclusion allowance (MEA) has been repealed.

Not sure just what you are asking, but could this help? http://www.sas70.com/index2.htm

Similar discussion http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...topic=21857&hl=

Assuming I understand the facts, the answer is A or B, depending on what your plan says. (There is probably a C also.)

You can get information in IRS publication 590, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf or call the IRS at 1-800-tax-form.

I've always been impressed by the word "fraud".

Most likely this is already addressed in the plan document. My read of IRC 410 is the prior service can be ignored for purposes of "eligibility service", if the plan includes that provision. See IRC 410(a)(5)(D). Usually, the best definition of participant is in the plan document, but you might also look at ERISA section 3(7).

Yep that would be a problem. If the plan is no longer in existence, who would issue a new check (or rollover) or a new 1099?