david rigby

Cool! http://soa2.syn.net/Stats/stats_employee.html Thanks, MGB

You can also see "Tax on Early Distributions" on page 27 of this IRS publication: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf

Perhaps a bit too obvious, but Dr. B should be getting ERISA legal advice from his/her ERISA attorney.

To clarify rollover Q, after-tax rollovers are now permitted, under 2001 tax law change. Prior to that, after-tax amounts were never eligible for a rollover.

Yes. But don't be mislead; "401(k)" is merely a special feature that can apply to a 401(a) plan. The plan you describe - after-tax contribs + match - is what we used to call a "thrift plan" (actually, we still call it that). It precedes what is now known univerally as "401(k)", which is not a plan type but a plan provision that permits pre-tax contributions.

Another source of QDRO info might be this: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=...elations_orders

.... when there is an unfunded ABO. if the assets exceed the ABO at disclosure date, you don't create a balancing item the other way.

As usual, BenefitsLink is the place to look first. Hyperlinked version of the table of contents here: http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2003-44.shtml But scroll to the bottom and find the link to pdf version.

I can't find any exception. However, if this is a "continuation" or spinoff of another plan, there might be an exception. It escapes me why anyone would design a plan with the seeming intention of maximizing the premium. So many ways to avoid this.

Ah, there's the rub (whatever that means). Check the QDRO for any information on this, and any potential definition "adjustment" for the time between a specified date and the actual segregation date.

Amendment: sure. Restatement: not necessary.

Just to clarify, my Q about timing of the proposed deduction still stands; enough ambiguity in the orginal post. I would recommend that the plan sponsor forget about a waiver. Since a waiver is for temporary business hardship, it is highly unlikey the IRS would consider this either temporary or hardship.

Plan provisions might state that the plan will automatically be terminated in case of a bankruptcy filing, although there could also be some additional conditions attached.

Need some more facts. The $50K is the 2002 PY contribution, but when is it being deducted?

But what does the plan say?

My experience is that forfeiture clauses are not common in qualified plans, even where the vesting is more generous than the minimum. However, forfeiture clauses are common in non-qualified plans.

... assuming the plan is covered by ERISA. Govt. plans are not, and might have a different minimum age requirement.

After Mom ceases being an HCE as described, Son remains an HCE by attribution, but there is no double attribution thru Son to Mom.

I'm not sure what this paragraph means. Perhaps it refers only to the assets. "Precedent" may not be the best indicator for choosing actuarial assumptions or an asset valuation method.

You can ask the PBGC for guidance on coverage issues. See number 5 under Contacts on page v. of this: http://www.pbgc.gov/plan_admin/2003ppp.pdf My personal opinion (which is worth the paper it is printed on) is that veterinarians should be eligible for “professional service employer”, but not for the “healing arts” reason you cite. Notice in section 4021©(2)(B) “… includes but is not limited to…” Thus, the language is open to include a profession that may have been inadvertently omitted in the original. Now over 25 participants? Definitely covered. If they drop below 25 at a later date? The language of 4021(b)(13) indicates that the plan would remain covered.

Generally, "safe harbor" is a terminology that is intended to mean a plan has certain provisions/characteristics that are deemed to be non-discriminatory. The result is a "free pass" on discrimination testing. But beware, there are many different issues in the law whose purpose is to avoid discrimination, and they usually require attention to different details.

Don't know if there are any reliable statistics. but some observations: - Many plans provide the minimum QPSA, or something close; my observation over 25 years is that this death benefit covers the largest number of participants, although there may be more plans with other definition. - One reason for the above is that the employer may already offer death benefit protection in the form of group life insurance. It usually is not an expensive employee benefit. - Many small plans and/or family-owned businesses offer a more substantial death benefit inside the pension plan, whether or not there is group life insurance. Those in this category often offer the PVAB as the death benefit. Note the other difference here: a lump sum will probably be offered as an alternative to a survivor annuity. - There can be a number of variations, but my hunch is that they have much lower prevalence. Of these, the most common is probably a lump sum defined as 100 times the (projected) monthly benefit. This is a carryover from times when almost all employee benefits were funded thru insurance products. - Another death benefit could be permanent life insurance (as distinguished from group term). The amount could be some multiple of the benefit or of salary, etc. This is not as common, for all the reasons above, but there are some situations where it can be useful.

Perhaps this is obvious to the orginal poster, but the phrasing is a bit troublesome: Please don't try to amend a 401(k) plan to add a defined benefit feature. Use a separate plan.

How about a "threatening" letter that you are going to let the service charges apply to reduce the amount of distribution?

A search of BenefitsLink for "affirmative action plan" probably will not produce any prior help. Ditto for a search of the Message Boards. However, a similar search using Google or other search engine will probably be helpful. Just don't expect it to be free.