david rigby

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.

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!