david rigby

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 See the first paragraph on the front page: the maximum exclusion allowance (MEA) has been repealed.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?

This is what I have, but I do not have original source for verification. The first age is 20. T5.txt

More earlier discussions; seem to be in agreement: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20733 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20568 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2901

When MGB states "they are taxed on them", don't forget that this includes Social Security tax (to the best of my knowledge). Thus, the EE and ER will be paying the tax.

Original post describes 3 companies. Not specified is whether there is more than one plan. If the "shutdown company" had its own plan, perhaps that plan is also being terminated. Assuming no plan termination, if the EE balance exceeds $5K, then the EE decides when to initiate distribution. Warning. May be a different result if some portion of the balance is a rollover from another plan.

What does "whole" mean? The first issue would be to establish that someone did something wrong. Assuming this plan is covered by ERISA, you should probably review the section in the back of your Summary Plan Description (SPD). It probably has a title something like "ERISA Rights."

Prior relevant discussion: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=21&t=13111

Wow! Common sense.

Initially, we assumed Blinky's question was purely rhetorical. Upon reflection, I believe it important discussion. MGB offers good comments and summary in the link above. Especially important is his observation that the legislative history (i.e., the committee reports) does not differ from the language of the statute. (Aside: the Conference Committee Report makes reference to the current liability rate based on a permissible range “…defined as a rate of interest that is not more than 20 percent above or below the average mid-term applicable Federal rate (AFR) for the 3-year period ending on the last day before the beginning of the plan year…”. See page 259 of the CCH guide to the Revenue Act of 1987. As we know, the statute uses a 10% corridor and a 4-year average, and uses Treasury securities rather than the mid –term rate.) I found nothing on point in the Gray Book, but I agree with MGB’s comment about the interpretation given by Jim Holland and other IRS representatives. It is my opinion that the IRS takes this position because they believe this is what the language should have said, in effect returning some level of discretion to us EAs. It also has the added benefit of taking the IRS out of the loop of trying to police every little thing. (It is possible you have overheard someone complain about the micromanagement that is the IRC.) What really happens? I couldn’t say. (Think of Harlan Weller when you hear that phrase.) I have no doubt that most EAs strongly believe that a DB plan’s best friend is a strong funded ratio, and the average EA is capable of seeing the big picture.

I have no idea if this is correct. My software seems to allow for this, but does not provide enough information to check it (that is, no q's at projection). I get a 100%J&S (60M, 57F) value of 14.551313. For reference, my male life annuity at 60 is 11.95511.

Not enough information. What advice have you already recieved from legal counsel?

How different are these? But I digress. From numerous discussions on these Message Boards, it appears that the determination of controlled group or affiliated service group is often incorrectly diagnosed. So be careful.

Hmmm. I'm not an accountant, but I would be nervous about a CPA who suggests an incorrect tax filing can be fixed in this way.

ERISA 204(g) is analogous to IRC 411(d)(6). My read of 204(h) is that is unrelated to the vesting schedule. There are other issues to respect when the vesting schedule is changed under IRC 411(a)(10). Notice is possible, but not required. See Reg. 1.411(a)-8T(b)(1). http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

Always amusing when an individual wants to do business with a "friend", often resulting in higher administrative costs than the economy of scale available to the Plan.