david rigby

The fact that the plan sponsor is being acquired does not require that the plan will change, or go away. Depends on many factors. The plan sponsor could engage an actuary to assist in comparing the value of the two types of plans. However, there will always be at least some element of "apples vs. oranges" in such comparison. What is the "rule of 80"? "...not particularly generous"? The plans I see are almost always less generous than 1.65% accrual rate.

MGB is correct about copyrights. I am not aware of any electronic copies of APB statments, but look here for more information on FASB statements http://www.fasb.org/st/#fas100

They may have said that but it might be inconsistent. Q&A 20 from the 1990 Gray Book: OBRA Funding In determining Current Liability for 1989 plan year minimum and maximum contributions, will any rate within the corridor described in IRS Notice 88-73 (subject to the 8% floor specified IRS Notice 88-31) be deemed to satisfy the annuity purchase rate requirement? RESPONSE In accordance with recent IRS Notice 90-11, any rate within the corridor of 7.92% and 9.68% inclusive, is acceptable as the annuity purchase rate for a 1989 calendar plan year. The 8% floor is no longer applicable.

If the plan is in danger, the PBGC will challenge the sale of the assets. The buyer will probably wish he/she had some legal advice.

Might? Count on it!

Who is "we"? - Plan sponsor? - TPA? - Two sons? etc.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? http://www.actuarialstandardsboard.org/pdf...and2_repeal.pdf

Perhaps stated too simply, but the only (pre-retirement) death benefit a plan is required to provide is the QPSA, sometimes referred to as the "REA miniumm". A plan can be amended to reduce its death benefit provisions to this level (assuming no other plan provision state otherwise). http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14485 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19204

MGB states very succintly what is significant about a partial termination. It is NOT the same concept as a frozen plan. Several discussions about on the message boards. Here is one that is too verbose (OK, I wrote it.) http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ct=ST&f=1&t=244

Blinky's summary is correct.

Assuming this plan is covered by IRC 411(d)(6), the plan change at 1/1/03 to "eliminate" lump sums would apply to future accruals. Thus at subsequent severance of employment, the participant would have all plan optional forms at 12/31/02 available with respect to accruals at that date, and the revised set of optional forms applied to accruals after that date. However, close inspection of plan language is always appropriate. A similar question: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=22&t=19740

Maybe. A non-electing church plan [iRC 414(e)], is exempt from IRC 411. However, the plan itself may have provisions that do not permit the proposed change.

Could there be confusion because the prior year did not require an audit?

Sorry, don't have a copy. I think that 2000 was the first year posted to the site. http://www.abanet.org/jceb/agency.html

A plan could also divide the allocation. For example, allocate $100 to all particicpants. Then allocate whatever is left using an age-weighted formula.

And it depends on what happens to the bonus. Since this Q was posted in the message board referring to Nonqualifed plans, its possible that you are asking about a bonus that was deferred. If so, that is a nonqualified plan; any comp that is deferred in a nonqualified plan should not be considered compensation under a qualified plan, at least not until actually paid.

See IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A 27. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

And here it is: http://benefitslink.com/articles/cashbalance.shtml

Not sure about the comment RE commingled assets. Could be a possible violation of the trust document? I second the comment RE competent legal advice.

Probably, but be careful. Relevant statute is ERISA sections 4021(b)(13) and 4021©(2). Note the requirement in 4021(b)(13) that the plan cannot have had more than 25 participants at any time after the enactment of ERISA.

There may be some help in prior discussions. Try using the search feature. One such example is http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19833

Another similar discussion: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15761

Thanks for being the first MGB. I'll guess it means "qualified taxfree fringe benefit", but that probably does not make sense. Even then, I still don't know what it is.

Try IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1, especially examples 5 and 6. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

IRC 412©(10) and Reg. 11.412©-12 use similar language: "eight and on-half months after the end of the plan year". I would have no problem interpreting that as 9/20/03 in your example.