david rigby

To what notice are you referring?

mbozek's comment about 4021(b)(9) is valid. There is ambiguity in the statute. Equally valid is anybody's experience with it. I wish Blinky had said that first.

Good advice. The counsel will also advise that, under some circumstances, an owner may be able to waive a portion of benefit upon plan termination, in order to "wipe out" the underfunding. Since this is a PBGC rule, the question about PBGC coverage must come first.

I found nothing in the Gray Book.

Not my understanding. Can you explain?

Duh! The very essence of adverse selection.

I see nothing in IRC 423 http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-D-II-423.html or the regs http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html which permits different eligibility for different employees, other than section 423( b)(4). No mention of collective bargaining. Notice subsection (5) requires the same “rights and privileges” for all employees who are “granted such options”.

Or put another way, even if the nephew portion/transaction is not a problem, the other 5/6 was a problem from the very beginning.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7759

Similar, perhaps identical, language is included on page 228 of the Seventh Edition of the same book (1992).

Asusming you are the plan sponsor, your duty is to the plan, and to ensure that the day-to-day administrative functions are performed according to the terms of the plan, and the requirements of the law. I'm not an attorney, but it seems that if you have reasonable expectation that a participant may commit fraud, it is appropriate that the plan sponsor "do the right thing". The plan's ERISA counsel will guide you.

But if you can adjust the next wire transfer easily, that might also be an acceptable solution. (Might depend on when that next transfer is.) Written documentation of your actions is advisable.

What happened to the voluntary contributions while in the DB plan? Tracked with individual accounts? Credited with interest? If so, how was that determined? BTW, how long did this feature exist? What was the pattern of usage? HCE’s only?

Probably some similar discussion in earlier threads. Might also help to refer to tax treaty. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/

ERISA section 403 is 29 CFR section 1103. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/1103.html (No guarantee that this site is up to date.)

Some prior discussion: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...t=0entry78262

Having spousal consent requirements would take the teeth out of the"requirement" now wouldn't it? The MRD is not eligible for rollover. What do you mean "is not taking his/her MRD"? The plan does not have to request the participant's permission. The term "required" seems to fill the same role as a "force-out".

Look for the reg here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

There may be other prior discussions about this. Try the Search feature. For example: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21594 The usual starting point is to determine why; that is, did someone (who? plan sponsor, trustee, beneficiary, etc) do or say something that is the heart of the problem? The plan's legal counsel will advise whether the recieiving financial institution has any culpability; typically, death will have a bearing on whether an account is "frozen". Your message implies the possibility of fraud. Again, the plan's legal counsel will help determine that. You may also need better controls on timely notification. The trustee will probably have some suggestions in that area.

No. My comment was an observation that Sal is held in high regard by many who contribute to these Message Boards. No disrespect intended to any.

IRS Reg. 1.411(a)-5. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Section (b) gives the periods of service that can be excluded. Subsection (3), including (3)(v), indicate that your PS plan would not be a "predecessor plan" and the service prior to establishment of DB plan can be ignored for the DB plan vesting service. But read carefully, subsection (3)(ii). Of course, there might be some very good reasons to be more generous.

Finally an end to one of the longest, and silliest, pi**ing contests yet seen on these Message Boards!

Is this an HCE? Ifso, could the ADP test results have limited the EE's contribution anyway? 402(g) limit could also be relevant.

Might depend on what the plan says. Is there any plan provision that could limit the EE to 5%, directly or indirectly? How long did this "incorrect" deduction go on?