david rigby

Well, no one shared experience so I will share how I completed the Schedule B: - All items on pages 1, 2, 3, and 5 reflect the surviving plan without regard to the merger. - All entries on page 4 reflect the plan merger, using my understanding of the Rev.Proc. section mentioned above. To produce these entries, I use 12 months for the surviving plan, plus 6 months (that is, between merger date and EOY) of the non-surviving plan. In all cases, the results of these two are added to develop the Schedule B entries. (Read the examples in section 4.07 carefully.) - The Schedule of Active Participants (Line 8c) reflects only the surviving plan. Of course, if you have a different perspective and/or experience, I am willing to learn.

Interesting. Since you say "...may be able to find the funds...", why not just ignore the possibility of rescinding the waiver application? If the sponsor has the cash available (on a timely basis), then make the contribution; the waiver will still be amortized, but you get a credit balance. All the administrative expense has already been incurred anyway. My guess is that a rescinded waiver would not count against your 3-times limit, but maybe someone else has seen this happen. (I doubt the IRS will refund the user fee.)

I think you have a 401(a)(4) issue if you do a "staggered" freeze.

Not sure either, but I think there is a principle (perhaps in a reg.) stating that if the sponsor ceases to do business, or goes bankrupt, the plan is automatically terminated. Most plan documents will have similar language.

Assuming the plan year begins 1/1/03, the assets used to determine the 2003 PBGC variable premium should be $1M. If the $75K is accrued for the 2002 PY, then it can be included, with proper discounting.

Be careful. A "professional organization" may not be a "professional service corporation".

Blinky is correct. BTW, in his own humorous way, Blinky is asking you to turn off the "CapsLock" key.

Please be careful. In the United States every year, more people are killed by vending machines than by sharks.

Click on "My Control Panel", then click "Edit email Address".

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

A pre-retirement death benefit might not be payable immediately. It might be deferred to the participant's first eligible retirement date, so there can be a deferred benefit. The plan can offer a lump sum alternative to such surviving spouse.

Not specified is the type of plan. If this is a DB plan, the investment vehicle is probably irrelevant. If this is a DC plan, then the comment about the fiduciary's responsibility is relevant.

Try this: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17117

Amen!

http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2003-83.shtml Huh? What am I missing? Where is the accrued liability "used to determined plan costs"? Where does it pass condition (2) of Rev. Rul. 81-13?

Permitted yes. But not required unless the funding method does not already provide for the next step.

This might have some relevant information: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p515.pdf There is a reference to graduated withholding tables in Circular A or Circular E, but I could not locate a link for those.

The UAAL cannot be negative; just set it to zero. But then, whether you revert to Aggregate or stay with FIL is part of your funding method. BTW, if you stay with FIL, then it should behave as if it were Agg (at least for that year); thus, if you have a credit balance, the 412 NC will differ from the 404 NC.

No expert I, but that sounds like either a continuation/new SERP, or it does not meet the definition of "distribution". I wonder what the plan document requires.

Just for clarity - Do both plans use a calendar plan year? - The reference to "transfer assets" is a bit troubling. Does that mean that the plans were merged on 10/01?

Earlier I stated that the corporate tax extension might not be sufficient to substitute for the form 5558. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=67&t=19849 However, I am unsure if that is still a true statement. Anyone know?

Every situation is different. The plan should probably have written administrative procedures outlining what actions to take, or not take. The goal is usually to treat all impacted participants alike, although you might have a de minimus exception. Usually it makes sense to seek reimbursement, but the plan sponsor will often face a decision when that does not produce anything. This revenue ruling deals shows how the IRS expects to deal with any repayment, at least from a tax perspective. http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2002-84.shtml

Never look for trouble. If the PA has reason to believe there is (or may soon be) a QDRO, then caution is advised. See several previous discussion threads on the QDRO message board. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...php?act=SF&f=89 But to look for a court order when none is suspected seems a bit “overboard”. The plan administrator is not usually under a burden to notify itself. As always, the PA should seek its own legal counsel.

Probably depends on what the plan says, and state/local statute(s).

Depends on whether you are an average candidate.