david rigby

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.

Many plan documents include a statement that automatically triggers plan termination upon the occurrence of certain events, such as dissolution, bankrupctcy, etc. If your document has similar language, that may help identify an appropriate date. If there is a legal advisor, get him/her involved in the question.

Might be some useful information here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/401k_...k_employee.html

The plan definition of compensation should include bonuses.

Amen. This assumes the buy-sell agreement did not already address this, such as by specifying vesting, or a spinoff.

Excellent! Thanks for sharing.

Interesting. Just a guess: the R is part of the 5500, and the exemption that permits the sponsor to file the 5500EZ will also mean an exemption from any schedules not requried by the EZ.

Your orginal post indicates (I think) that the 3 years of service is vesting purposes. If so, and if the plan does not also state that it is used for participating (or benefit) service, then one should not assume it applies for any other purpose. However, it is also possible that the plan could have been amended later to change that. SPD might indicate some ambiguity in plan language, but the plan's provsions will control. Possible exception could be language in a collective bargaining agreement.

See DOL reg. http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ebsa/Title_2...0/Subpart_F.htm 2520.104b-10 addresses the SPD. Paragraph (a) refers to 2520.104b-1. I read the latter as requiring a copy by sent or provided to each affected participant. Note the reference to "actual receipt" in the first paragraph of (b) and to "the mail" in second paragraph of (b).

Tom is correct about the ACP test. However, it is not the only issue to consider. - For example, consider the process of communicatng this feature, both the first time and ongoing. - Will the addition of such feature cause confusion among employees as to which money is which? - What about withdrawals while employed? - Will the existing plan find less favor?

If this is a new plan, and NRA is defined as the later of 65 and 5th anniversary of participation, then there may be no vested benefit yet.

some of the topics here are a bit out of date. Anyone know if there are plans to update them? http://www.soa.org/library/stats/seb.htm