david rigby

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.

IRS Reg. 1.416-1. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Q&A M-11 M-11 Q. May either the defined benefit minimum or the defined contribution minimum be integrated with social security? A. No.

4. Tell the plan sponsor. 5. Make sure done correctly in the future.

There is a difference between "unaware" and "don't want to know".

I thought this is entirely within the auditor's discretion. However, the auditor should probably investigate whether this is addressed in AICPA guidelines, such as with respect to SFAS No. 35, or DOL audit guidelines. I've seen both. Consistency is probably important.

1. No excise tax unless the contribution exceeds that which could be deducted. Facts indicate that the "excess" will be considered a contribution in and for the 2003 plan year, and deducted in the 2003 fiscal year. 2. 404 assets at 1/1/2003 will exclude any contribution not already deducted. 412 assets will include any portion of this acrued contribution which is included in the 12/31/2002 funding standard account.

Watson Wyatt has some information: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/resren...id=w-363&page=1 http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/resren...id=W-476&page=1 http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research/resren...id=w-554&page=1 http://www.watsonwyatt.com/us/research/fas/ This survey from Milliman contains some information: http://www.milliman.com/eb/pension-fund-su...2003summary.pdf

Why is this plan being terminated? The facts indicate that it could be amended as a much simpler alternative.

So often the answer is "it depends". Sounds like deduction taken was more than permitted, but look at valuation results again to see if the 60K can be justified. Not an attorney or accountant, but the facts given indicate the tax return is in error. However, if the $60K was contributed after the plan year end, there may be no excess, hence no excise tax. The extra $10K would be a contribution for the 2002 year, and excluded from the 404 assets. But the deduction of 60K would still be a problem.

Could apply. I had an example where a retiree was receiving $100 per mo., with a $50 survivor payment to spouse. QDRO divided the $100 to pay $50 to retiree while alive and $50 to ex-spouse while retiree alive. Then upon the retiree death, the $100 stops, but the $50 surviving spouse benefit begins.

It may also depend on how the plan defines the QPSA.

Anyone have any additional information? http://www.plansponsor.com/pi_type10/?RECORD_ID=22021 http://www.fasb.org/board_handouts/08-20-03.pdf (pages 14-23)

I agree with mbozek. In fact, he may have stated it mildly. Expect the PBGC to challenge the sale, or go after both seller and buyer.

Sometimes both form and substance are of extreme importance.

Safe to assume that this is not an "equal partnership"?