david rigby

I have used all of them at various times, both paper and internet. Now, no more paper. Recently, we have used BNA and CCH, but I prefer BNA.

The confusion caused by double-posting. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...topic=22270&hl=

To amplify Andy's response, it would be better to state "...may not exceed any prior year's accrual..."

Your 2002 deficiency becomes part of your 2003 funding requirements. If the 2003 required contribution is zero, you will have satisfied the requirement, including the prior deficiency. BTW, the penalty becomes 100% the second year if not satisfied. See IRC section 4971.

And get out the checkbook.

I think you just paid more than the plan permits. You might also have a DRO with enough ambiguity to question whether it is qualified.

Don't forget to look here: http://www.benefitslink.com/jobs/index.shtml

Assuming this plan has the post-NRD provision of actuarial increases, the choice of this assumption can be significant. But, if the benefit is the 415 limit, it gets easier.

I agree with your comment RE materiality. But be carfeul who is making that determination. WRT recognizing the effect of change in comp limit(s), it seems appropriate to include it if you know it. If the actual amendment wording differs from what you expected / valued, then there might be 3 choices: - consider re-determining the NPPC, or - include the difference in the next year's NPPC, or - let it fall into accumulated g/l (depending on materiality).

From Gray Book: QUESTION 94- 22 Lump Sum Availability of Section 415(b)(4) Amount -- 415 Under section 415( b)(4), a defined benefit plan may pay up to $10,000 per year (regardless of age) if the employee has no defined contribution benefits from the employer. Assuming that such amount exceeds the otherwise determined 415( b) limit, can it be paid in the form of a lump sum? RESPONSE: No. IRC Regulation 1.415-3(f)(4) states: "Computation of $10,000 Amount. For purposes of subparagraph (1)(i) of this paragraph, the value of the retirement benefit payable under the plan is not adjusted upward for early retirement provisions and benefits which are not in the form of a straight life annuity (whether or not directly related to retirement benefits)." In other words, no upward adjustment in the $10,000 is allowed for payment in a form other than straight life annuity, including a lump sum. Copyright © 1994, 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.

It depends. Some things to consider, assuming this plan is covered by ERISA: - The sale/spinoff might create a "partial termination", the consequence of which would be to give 100% vesting to those affected. - Even if that does not happen, the seller might choose to give 100% vesting. Just takes a simple plan amendment. If not, then the affected employees will probably be considered to have severed employment at the date of sale, and their accrued benefit and vesting will be determined as of that date. - An alternative is to establish a new plan (that is, spinoff a new plan by itself) with only the affected employees. Then upon sale of the “new division”, the plan goes with it. This is usually not recommended because the buyer gets the benefit of non-vested forfeitures. - Another variation is for the buyer and seller to negotiate a transfer of liabilities (and assets) directly from seller’s plan to buyer’s plan. BTW, this assumes the buyer is outside the controlled group of the seller.

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.