david rigby

Holy cow! In what context was this "advice" and who provided it? (BTW, the correct acronym is PBGC.)

What do you want the answer to be? For example, if you want to cover the NHCE, perhaps reducing the hours requirement for a TH benefit will solve the problem.

Tom, is there any other way to think?

Blinky is correct. See (and read carefully) Rev. Ruling 81-213, section 7.02.

Improve? Not this joke.

Not sure about the meaning of "professional association", but the statute uses the term "professional service employer" and defines that in section 4021( c)(2). The exemption is in 4021(b)(13).

Agreed that it is not significant, but if memory serves, you would have gotten that question on the EA exam wrong.

There have been several discussion threads here on this topic.

I have always considered the Equation of Balance to be sacred. By the way, the correct definition is found in Reg. 1.412©(3)-1(b)(1). Accordingly, I would establish a new base to "make it balance", even if that base will be wiped out EOY. I agree that it does not make sense to amortize the credit balance, but then that is the price we pay for having the CB concept.

Send it to me.

Certainly no direct recourse. Other prior discussions on this topic may be helpful. Try the Search feature. You don't identify your relationship other than this is your "client". If you are not the plan's attorney, be careful what advice you give. (OK, even if you are the plan's attorney, be careful.)

http://benefitslink.com/taxregs/204h-final-2003.shtml

Don't forget that a plan freeze may be a viable alternative. Might be possible to save some administrative fees associated with plan termination if the buyer and seller consider a plan merger, or some similar event. The Seller did consult attorney on this point, right?

Call the plan's attorney !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEC staff No-action letters can be found here, but there is not much history. http://www.sec.gov/interps.shtml As Kirk notes, CCH or BNA research services are the most likely source of older documents. When I searched BNA for "group annuity contract bank", I got 21 hits. BTW, the original post stated "individual group annuity contracts". Terminology seems awkward. I presume it refers to "more than one" GA contract.

Seems unlikely that the 100% penalty could apply if the plan is terminating in a standard termination. Revenue Rulings can be located here: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglist/revrulmaster.htm

http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16641

Doubtful that any plan sponsor has "4 to 5 years" to make any contribution. Perhaps that is a commitment to reimburse the seller for the contribution.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A-25 … (b)… (3) Divorce. If a participant divorces his spouse prior to the annuity starting date, any elections made while the participant was married to his former spouse remain valid, unless otherwise provided in a QDRO, or unless the participant changes them or is remarried. If a participant dies after the annuity starting date, the spouse to whom the participant was married on the annuity starting date is entitled to the QJSA protection under the plan. The spouse is entitled to this protection (unless waived and consented to by such spouse) even if the participant and spouse are not married on the date of the participant's death, except as provided in a QDRO. My understanding of this is that changes after the divorce (assuming divorce occurs after annuity commencement) are possible only if the spouse gives consent and the plan permits. If the plan does not permit such change, no QDRO can order it. I have never seen a plan which would permit such change. Agree? Disagree?

I believe any accrual pattern can be used if you wrap the whole thing in the fractional rule.

From your phrasing, I assume the plan does not use the fractional rule of 411(b)(1)©. Compliance with 411 is a requirement for qualification. If not compliant, not qualified. I think you have to fix the root problem. Plan's ERISA counsel should be consulted.

Maybe. Hurricane Isabel. See IRS website, I think the item is dated 9/24/2003.

Pardon my paranoia, but I don't think the original question has been answered. "Partial distribution" has been defined as "distributing only part of the balance". This does not help, as GBurns correctly points out. Under what circumstances does the distribution occur? This is not a loan is it? Is this a 401(k) plan? Does the account include rollover money? (I have probably overlooked some other important questions.)

Please define "partial distribution".

No, assuming the plan is subject to the J&S rules of ERISA. Also, it is doubtful that a QDRO could "cancel" spouse benefit.