david rigby

Any plan can define separately vesting service and participating service. A participant might have been vested at 10 years of service, but have a lesser number of years of participating service, the former used to determine whether the participant is entitled to a benefit, the latter used to determine the amount of the benefit. I'm unclear which you are asking about.

When I first read this, I assumed it should have been posted to the Humor message board.

I am finally faced with using the PBGC Missing Participant program (instead of just reading about it), found at PBGC Reg. 4050 is here: <a href='http://www.pbgc.gov/laws/lawsregs/code/CFR4050R.HTM'>http://www.pbgc.gov/laws/lawsregs/code/CFR4050R.HTM The interest rate required is referenced as found in Appendix B of Reg 4044. The introduction to that table reads: “This table sets forth, for each indicated calendar month, the interest rates (denoted by i1, i2, . . ., and referred to generally as it) assumed to be in effect between specified anniversaries of a valuation date that occurs within that calendar month; those anniversaries are specified in the columns adjacent to the rates. The last listed rate is assumed to be in effect after the last listed anniversary date.” The rates given (for June 2003) are 4.70% for t = 1 to 20, and 5.25% for t > 20. Can anyone help me decipher this? And do I read correctly, that Attachment B to Schedule MP does not ask for the benefit payable as an annuity, only the lump sum equivalent ?! I must be missing something. Thanks.

I believe the rule is that 404 assets should exclude non-deducted contributions.

1. Not sure if it is relevant for a 412(i) plan, but the usual reasons for choosing a BOY or EOY valuation are related to when information is needed or available, such as asset or compensation. 2. ?? 3. Contract terms, probably? 4. No.

Hold on. What do you mean by "it does not have to be the same key employee"? There has to be a common Key Employee, but it does not have to be all Key employees.

The SOA link is http://www.soa.org/library/stats/seb.htm Click on "Moodys Content Agreement".

Most J&S forms of payment are fixed at the point of commencement. Thus, if the spouse dies first, it usually has no effect on the benefit to the participant. But a review of the plan document should help determine if that is correct for your plan.

You can look up the TH regs at 1.416 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html See Q&A T-6 for the definition of a "required aggregation group". In a nutshell, if one (or more) Key Employees is a participant in both plans, then the plans must be aggregated. Note that when you have a required aggregation, a TH percent for each plan standing alone is meaningless. See Q&A T-7 for a "permissive aggregation group". It sounds like this will not be relevant to your situation. The TH status of the required group will be determined at the determination date that applies to both plans, which might be the end of the first plan year for the new plan. BTW, curious as to why you have a new money purchase plan. That is rather unusual post-EGTRRA.

Probably look to terms of DB plan first. It should state what happens when an employee terminates employment. Can't "transfer defaulted loan" until you verify there was a defaulted loan. Not sure how you can do it anyway.

The lesson is that Bob (and any other participants?) should make sure there is a valid beneficiary designation on file.

GCM 39310 GCM39310.rtf

Here are some other threads that discuss some of these issues http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=17&t=19437 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=22&t=15583 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=19&t=11053

This reg. includes tables labeled as 2M and 2F for disabled males and disabled females. http://www.pbgc.gov/laws/lawsregs/code/CFR4044R.HTM

Searching for some perspectives. Plan A merges into Plan B on 6/30. Both have calendar PY. Both have a non-zero Credit Balance. Both have Reconciliation Account. The surviving plan has a full funding credit, without regard to the merger. I do not have a change of method, but am using the techniques in section 4.07 of Rev. Proc. 2000-40 to develop my funding standard account. Anyone willing to share some experience?

Additional information RE the "employer stock" question. ERISA section 407(a) indicates that the 10% limit applies to "employer securities and employer real property".

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cf...hZ2U9MQ**&p_li=

But also check to see what the plan already says.

I could find nothing in Rev. Proc. 2000-40 or in the Gray Book that addresses this. The references in the Rev. Proc to the 80%-120% corridor refer to IRS reg. 1.412©(2)-1©. That is one simple paragraph that does not address this issue. However, it sounds to me like this is part of how the actuary wants to define the method. So I vote for both.

Sounds like the attorney might be asking the plan to do his job. You could refer him to http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/qdros.html

Not necessarily. The original post stated "...no way can the actual offset exceed what's is permitted by the Code." That does not imply 401(l), although it is possible that prior administrative practice treated it as such. Perhaps a first step is to carefully determine the plan language and the prior administrative procedures.

Unclear. Does "allowed" refer to an administrative decision or to a plan provision?

HR 1776 is here. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1776: Act section 302 amends IRC 411. Section 411 has no direct impact on plans sponsored by governmental organizations. Note that it could have an impact if the plan incorporates the same language or refers to the Code section by reference. I have not inspected the new language, but a cursory reading indicates that the change here results in faster vesting for multi-employer plans.

It is possible that earlier discussion threads will help: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...=ST&f=22&t=8025 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...=ST&f=20&t=4690 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...=ST&f=20&t=4522

My oversimplified view is that the IRS is stuck in the box of thinking that a DB plan has to be defined one way just because it always has been.