david rigby

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.

I'm sure someone can correct me if this is out of date. Blinky is correct that the corporate extension can be used. However, the extension of the corporate income tax return is to September 15 (CY plans) but the Form 5558 extension is to October 15, so be careful.

As stated by Mike, there is a lot here. Anyone who helps will need much more information than is posted in this message thread. While I don't disagree with Mike's suggestion to consider an attorney, you might also consider this program: http://www.actuary.org/palprogram.htm

This is Q&A 2003-35 from the Gray Book: QUESTION 35 DC Plans: Safe Harbor 401(k) Plans, Top-Heavy Exemption If a plan that is intended to be a safe harbor 401(k) plan also provides for a separate profit sharing contribution (which may be discretionary), does the 401(k) part of the plan lose the exemption from top-heavy under Code section 416(g)(4)(H), as added by EGTRRA? Does it matter whether a profit sharing contribution is actually made or not under the profit sharing provision for a given year? RESPONSE If a profit sharing contribution is actually made, the top-heavy exemption is lost. The exemption does apply if there is no actual profit sharing contribution. The safest course of action is to have two separate plans. Copyright © 2003, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

I also heard the discussion to which Frank alludes. It was presented something like: - participant retires on December 1 and receives annual distribution (plan permits annual payment). The amount is the 415 limit. - participant changes his mind about form of payment on February 1 and receives a lump sum (as permitted by plan), - since the age is the same (using the plan's rounding procedures), the lump sum is the present value of a 415 benefit.

Does DOL Reg. 2520.104b-10)d)(3) help? http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ebsa/Title_2...520.104b-10.htm

Perhaps this is all just too silly: Just to be cautious, has the plan taken advantage of the retoractive application of the $200K comp limit? Has there been a distribution? Can the benefit be defined using a normal form of a J&S, then pay monthly or annual benefits instead of a lump sum? If the plan can continue to exist, make sure it takes advantage of future increases in 415 limit.

OK to be more generous than the law allows in this area. Might be some business and/or benefit planning reasons not to do this, though.

Try this. http://www.soa.org/tablemgr/tablemgr.asp Read the qxtables.txt file to see a list of the tables included.

Mike's comments certainly echo my gut reaction as well. It is possible that the PBGC has already answered this question. My hunch is that they would be able to give an unequivocal answer. On the outside chance that this is new ground, it seems likely that both the IRS and PBGC would prefer the spinoff route. Otherwise, it becomes very difficult to document how the assets are allocated.

How is the 8/1/03 amendment different from a plan freeze?

Assuming that the participant really did receive adequate notice, (2). See pages 25-27 of the Form 1040 instructions. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

Already I miss Dick Wickersham.

Note that this could lead to the establishment of a "transition" base for amortization. That should not be a problem, since the prupose of a "transition" is to respond to a change in accounting method.

Contains some provisions of concern. For example, upon termination of a DC plan, it permits the transfer to the PBGC of account of a "missing participant". I wonder if the authors intend for DB plans to pay for the administrative cost of such service.