david rigby

Be careful. What does "failing the test" mean? If that refers to the ADP test, the solution is not (but could be in certain circumstances) to make a 3% T-H contribution.

If there is another plan, might also need comp to determine deductible limits.

You need a plan amendment. Don't forget the notice requirements under ERISA section 204(h). The practical impact of the amendment will be the later of the adoption date or it stated effective date. Thus, you can amend the plan with a retroactive effective date, but not so that it reduces accrued benefits that have been earned as of the amendment's adoption date.

Ridiculous. The employee did nothing wrong. If the 1099R was issued with the plan's EIN, the employee has no knowledge of anything wrong. The plan and employer should take care of this.

Why bother? Leave the PS plan as is, with future contributions reduced.

The concept of "maximum" is usually related to the term "deductible". A non-profit does not have deductions. However, there may be other constraints. For example, the non-profit might have a for-profit subsidiary.

GBurns is correct. However, if there is any "prohibition", it should already exist in writing, presumably on the same piece of paper that has your signature acknowledging it. If you took a "package", look at the written materials you already have. Even if such does exist, and is legit, it may be that your former employer is being unreasonable, to their own detriment. That is, your role of training very likely could be of benefit to them. If that happens, be sure to get a written statement releasing you from any restictions.

Carfeul what you ask for. An extension of this could be that plan sponsors no longer offer medical coverage for spouses. IMHO, that would be an undesirable trend.

Enough already! Please see earlier discussion in which I pointed out that the baseball season ended on October 5.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ebsa/Title_29/Chapter_XXV.htm

Not stated is what type of plan. If this is a DB plan, check the plan document (always good advice anyway). It is possible that the only death benefit to a surviving spouse (if a valid QDRO) is a 50% survivor annuity. Many other possibilites If this is a DC plan, it is possible that the plan awards 50% of account balance to spouse, and the other 50% to another "beneficiary".

Only one experience: a relative of mine works for an academic institution, and is regularly scheduled for 30 hours per week. She has some flexibility in how tha is done. In her case, she works M-Th: 6/8/8/8, none on Friday. If a holiday falls on a Wednesday (for example), she is credited with 6 hours because that is one-fifth of her regular week. She has to make up the other 2 hours some other way.

I appreciate the vote of confidence Blinky. I could find nothing in the Gray Book, either before or after issuance of Rev. Proc. 2000-40, that helps in this area. I like Blinky's logic and comments. However, don't forget that the 10/15/03 valuation should include any plan amendments since 12/31/02 valuation, which includes the plan termination. (Not sure if that helps any. I confess to being confused about the goal.) Another considerations: - Modification of actuarial assumptions might still be available; - You can still apply for a method change. If the goal is to get to UC, I think it likely that the IRS would approve it.

I agree. And both of Harwood's stated facts are related to each other.

Might be sensible to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill. Perhaps the Plan Administrator should write a letter to spouse, identify the issue, and state that all future checks will be in the name and SSN of the spouse. Since it appears the plan is not out any total $, don't make it too complicated. Make sure plan's attorney reviews the situation before any correspondence to spouse.

I must be stupid. I thought that would be governed by the terms of the plan.

The "roll-forward" (someone else probably has better phrase) always starts with last year's (Accrued) or Prepaid Pension Account. Do not reflect any Additional Liability. Yes, when the Asset - ABO becomes positive again, the Additional Liability and Intangible Asset vanish. Presumably, the financial statements for those accounts show whatever item is necessary to "zero out". For some background, see Illustration 5 (pages 102-111) in the the original SFAS87. Also, see Q&A-34 in the "Guide to Implementation of Statement 87"

Assuming this plan is subject to IRC 411, you may have to determine the total benefit under the plan, and then determine the EE-provided portion using the requirements under 411. The ER-provided portion will be whatever is leftover.

It is my understanding that the EA is always always always an individual. I agree that it should not matter for a change within an organization, but that is not consistent with prior comments from IRS/DOL. From Gray Book 1992-36: "36. Must a change in enrolled actuary resulting from reassignment of cases within the same firm (both EAs have the same employer ID number) be reported on form 5500? Must the plan sponsor notify the prior EA of this change? ANSWER: Under ERISA, the enrolled actuary must be an individual person (i.e., not a service provider as is often the case for accountants). Therefore, if the person who signs a Schedule B is not the same person who signed the prior year's form, that constitutes a change from the DOL's perspective even though both actuaries are employed by the same firm and there probably was not a formal "termination of the appointment" of the first actuary. Accordingly, in order to avoid a possible rejection of the 5500 (for being incomplete), item 28© should be answered "yes", Part III of Schedule C should be completed and the "former" actuary should be notified accordingly." © Enrolled Actuaries Meeting.

Remember that the employer can let "leftover" dollars can be directed to a 401(k) plan. In that case, the taxation of the $ changes a bit (FICA).

Link to 5500 instructions: http://www.dol.gov/EBSA/PDF/2002-5500inst.pdf See bottom of page 7 and continuing to top of page 8. My understanding is: 1. Yes 2. Yes

I'm not sure that definition will require a decreasing denominator. However, that is probably an administrative determination. (Probably too optimistic to hope for a precedent.) That said, it looks like a fraction of 3/36 one year and 3/35 next year will result in an increased accrued benefit. Sounds like "benefiting" to me. Prior discussion: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5211

It is my observation that this happens fairly often, where the plan sponsor is saving administrative expense by taking advantage of its own existing check-writing abilities. That does not mean it is not a PT. Remember, it is a fool who takes legal advice from an actuary.

Excuse me. The baseball season ended on Sunday.

... and the best advice to your client would be that they should direct these questions to the Plan's ERISA attorney.