david rigby

Perhaps we can suggest that Sal write some of the regs.

Upon further reflection, make sure you are not dealing with a situation where the spouse is really the second spouse. If the spouse (defined at the time benefits begin) dies, most plans will not permit a subsequent spouse to assume the survivor role under a J&S form of payment.

It is interesting that some people, in the interest of relieving suffering, suggest that the feeding tube be removed. Starvation is very painful, and is a prime example of suffering.

My mistake. I forgot about the EGTRRA change to the referenced Code section. 25 % is correct.

Don't forget about 415 limits.

Do you make that determination with reference to individual results, or to the underlying plan fomula?

What does the plan say to do with forfeitures? As you state, already deducted once. Do you have a problem with IRC 404(a)(3)(A)(i)? (My hunch is that if the answer is "yes", then you may have a problem in prior years.) BTW, for that mental block about 25%, see EGTRRA, and the plan amendment which adopted appropriate provisions.

BTW, a PEP could be designed (I think) with reference to final average comp, rather than total comp as described in Mike's post of 10/20/03.

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"