david rigby

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.

DOL Advisory Opinons can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/aos/main.html#1994

You may be eligible. I suggest starting by asking about the plan's definition of "termination of covered employment" (your phrase, the plan might not use that terminology).

Let me take this a bit further. Assume there is no statute. If the provider (that is, the recipient of payment) is alleging that the payor should pay more due to delays (assuming no debate over who is doing the delaying), is there a course of action such provider could take? Plan appeal procedure first? What court? Type of claim? etc.

Was there a previous plan?

RR 58-230 has been obsoleted by RR 91-8. http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1991/revrul91-8.htm

Act fast and get it in writing. All your correspondence with former employer should also be in writing. Use return receipt mail if necessary.

The original questioner may wish to review any of several prior discussion threads about this topic. Try the Search feature, with "negative election" or "automatic enrollment".

It is my understanding that the plan can be drafted so that the required minimum distribution will not be applicable for 5 years.

Possible, since the DOL and IRS have different jurisdictions.

You are going to share them, aren't you?

Just to be clear: (1) the $78K was considered a 412 contribution, was included in the funding standard account, and was included in the 1/1/00 412 assets as a receivable? (2) in deriving the 2000 404 contribution limit (amount not given), the $78K was not included in the 1/1/00 404 assets?

I think the plan can be amended to do this. However, many actuaries (me included) would describe this as the opposite of common sense. It is the classic case of the “anti-selection”, where the participant has new information that was not available at the earlier date of retirement. The most likely scenario is that a retiree has either elected (1) a J&S and the spouse died first, or (2) the retiree thinks his life expectancy will be less than average and wants to elect a lump sum. If the plan is amended to add this option, expect a net increase in the overall cost of the plan. Also, be careful of discrimination problems.

Andy's response is good. As he implies, the plan(s) need input from ERISA attorney, but don't forget to run this by auditor, to make sure there is no problem with deduction. I suggest that repayment of the principal need not wait for determination of the interest amount. This problem is not uncommon (although not for two years), so don't be reluctant to have complete documentation and disclosure.

If the participant was ever put on a Schedule SSA, be sure each participant is (or has been) included on a subsequent SSA as "no longer entitled to deferred vested benefits". See instructions for Line 4. Oops, I just noticed this was a posting in the 403(b) Message Board. Well, you get the idea, anyway.