david rigby

....of course with consideration for the exact language of the plan and amendment. The amendment could be more generous than the minimum required by 411(d)(6).

Today is bozo day. Can't find this anywhere, and reading the statute is difficult. For the purpose of determining whether quarterly contibutions are required for the plan year beginning in 2002, JCWAA allowed the plan to recalculate the 2001 current liability funded ratio using an upper bound of 120% of the CL rate. In order to utilize this, did the 2001 CL rate already have to be at the 105% level?

Does the exclusive benefit rule have a bearing?

This IRS ruling might be useful. http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2002-84.shtml

IRC section 417(e)(3) provides for the “applicable mortality table” and “applicable interest rate” used for calculating minimum lump sums. The current such mortality table is the unisex version of the GAR94 table (with projection) as the IRS has given in Revenue Ruling 2001-62. Under current statute and regs., the mortality table is defined as “based on the prevailing commissioners' standard table (described in section 807(d)(5)(A)) used to determine reserves for group annuity contracts issued on the date as of which present value is being determined (without regard to any other subparagraph of section 807(d)(5)).” Recently (sometime in 2000, I think), at least 26 state insurance departments/commissioners adopted this table for group annuity reserving purposes. At that point, it became “prevailing”, and the IRS was required to specify it (or some variation) as the table to be used for this purpose. There is no theoretical reason why the RP2000 table could not be used for current liability purposes. However, it is unlikely the insurance commissioners/departments of the various states will choose to adopt it. The RP2000 table was developed specifically for defined benefit plan purposes, while the GAR94 table was developed for the purpose of updating group annuity reserving processes. An actuary will calculate life expectancy using a mortality table (chosen as appropriate for the purpose). In general, a mortality table consists of probabilities of death at each age. An actuary's training includes knowing how and why a table is constructed, to make sure the most appropriate table is used (for example, a table based on disabled persons would not be appropriate to use in valuing group annuity reserves). The actuary is also trained to use that table to calculate life expectancy, or joint life expectancy where a spouse might be included, or any other determination for actuarial value.

This would be a surprising result. The employee will probably want the insurance company to document its statement, including demonstrating where such provision is included in the plan/contract. There is probably also an appeal procedure.

When it comes to California courts, one never knows, but perhaps this discussion thread will help: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...=ST&f=89&t=2851

Probably, but it might depend on the specifics of the POA, and whether the POA is due to incapacity. The participant probably needs competent legal advice. The plan might also.

This table, and its development, has hit the news lately. http://www.actuary.org/pdf/pension/nyt_050603.pdf http://www.plansponsor.com/pi_type10/?RECORD_ID=20596 http://www.actuary.org/pdf/pension/portman_050603.pdf

A little clarity first please: merged or terminated. Which is it? Can't be both.

This is one of the most frequently discussed topics here. I suggest using the search feature.

Sorry if nothing was on point. I thought there was explicit regulatory statement that no divestiture was required. The answer is "no" (I think).

The first part of Mike's post is more urgent than the second. Discuss with the prior actuary is much more important than involving the ABCD, at least for now.

Several prior discussion threads on this topic. For example: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=20&t=14565 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=22&t=18394 In general, you might the search feature (with keywords such as “qualifying employer”) http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...p?act=Search&f=

Relevant? http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...=ST&f=3&t=17802

When considering 411(d)(6), remember that it applies to the accrued benefit, not projected, and to the plan, not combination of plans.

This might help. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=67&t=18524

Text of the IRS manual mentioned above: 7.7.2.2.6 (04/20/99) Discontinuance of Contributions IRC 411(d)(3) requires that, in the case of a plan to which IRC 412 does not apply, upon complete discontinuance of contributions under the plan, the rights of all affected employees to benefits accrued to the date of such discontinuance, to the extent funded as of such date, or the amounts credited to the employees' accounts, must be nonforfeitable. See Reg. 1.411(d)-2(a)(1)(ii). A determination that contributions have been discontinued and the date upon which such discontinuance occurred requires consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances. A discontinuance of contributions may occur although some amounts are contributed by the employer under the plan if such amounts are not substantial enough to reflect the intent on the part of the employer to continue to maintain the plan. See Reg. 1.411(d)-2(d). If the employer has failed to make substantial contributions in 3 out of 5 years, and there is a pattern of profits earned, consider the issue of discontinuance of contributions. If the employer has failed to make significant contributions in years prior to the proposed year of termination, consider whether an earlier discontinuance has occurred. Prior to the TRA '86, (or if the contributions are limited to the employer's profits), the employer must have had sufficient profits (as defined by the plan) for the years under consideration to make contributions. For plan years beginning on or after 1/1/86, profits are no longer required for making contributions to a profit sharing plan. See IRC 401(a)(27). A temporary cessation of contributions in a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan may not constitute a discontinuance of contributions. However, if this becomes a discontinuance, the discontinuance becomes effective not later than the last day of the taxable year of the employer following the last taxable year of such employer for which a substantial contribution was made under the profit-sharing plan, if a single employer plan. In the case of a profit sharing plan maintained by more than one employer, the discontinuance is effective not later than the last day of the plan year following the plan year within which the last substantial contribution was made by any employer. See Reg. 1.411(d)-2(d). A determination that contributions have been discontinued and the date upon which such discontinuance occurred requires a consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances. See Reg. 1.411(d)-2(d). Comment: Notice the last sentence above. 7.7.2.2.6.1 (04/20/99) Processing Step Generally, in a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, if the employer has failed to make substantial contributions in 3 out of 5 years, and there is a pattern of profits earned, consider the issue of discontinuance of contributions. NOTE: Unless there are participants with less than 100% vesting during the years under consideration, there is no practical consequence to the discontinuance of contributions issue.

There is only one plan listed on the Kansas PERS website, http://www.kpers.org/index.html

There are some earlier discussion threads that might be related, such as: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...=ST&f=20&t=4546 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...t=ST&f=1&t=8846 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...t=ST&f=1&t=8293

This site is maintained (perhaps not well) by the Cornell law school: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/416.html Section 613(d) of EGTRRA http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107...p/~c107AmWnpQ:: added 416(g)(4)(H): "(d) DEFINITION OF TOP-HEAVY PLANS- Paragraph (4) of section 416(g) (relating to other special rules for top-heavy plans) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: `(H) CASH OR DEFERRED ARRANGEMENTS USING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF MEETING NONDISCRIMINATION REQUIREMENTS- The term `top-heavy plan' shall not include a plan which consists solely of-- `(i) a cash or deferred arrangement which meets the requirements of section 401(k)(12), and `(ii) matching contributions with respect to which the requirements of section 401(m)(11) are met. If, but for this subparagraph, a plan would be treated as a top-heavy plan because it is a member of an aggregation group which is a top-heavy group, contributions under the plan may be taken into account in determining whether any other plan in the group meets the requirements of subsection ©(2).'."

Here is a link to section 416. http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-...-D-I-B-416.html I do not know if this site is reliably maintained.

Did you hear that Saddam Hussein was injured? He lost a leg. Just think how pissed off all the doubles are now!

Most likely a plan with a qualification letter has a provision such that (loosely phrased) "in no event will section 415 limit be exceeded". So common that it would be a shock if it's not in the plan document.

Note that the website transition to EBSA is nearly total. The old website name www.dol.gov/pwba gives you instruction and link to the new page, www.dol.gov/ebsa. Incredibly, this site http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/aboutebsa/history.html does not mention PWBA