david rigby

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

Frank, when and where was this position published/pronounced? Can you provide a link or other reference so we can read it? Thanks.

The client we assisted with a waiver needed three addresses: original address in Rev. Proc, and two more when other IRS offices asked for additional information. Ridiculous.

What do you want the answer to be? Seriously, if you want B to sponsor the plan, then the attorney should get busy drafting the agreement that states B will assume the plan. Then B can merge plan A into plan B. If you don't want that to happen, then you are already there. Plan A will be probably be deemed terminated, although maybe not right away since there is still an employee (OK, sort of). If the plan has any PS contributions that are not 100% vested, they are now (partial termination).

Correct.

Asuming I understand the original post correctly, the plan participant is still an employee, so there has not yet been a distributable event? If there were "lengthy divorce proceedings" is the plan administrator already on notice of a pending QDRO? Pardon my ignorance, but since there is no way for hospital to attach plan benefits, how is moving $X to the ex-spouse going to protect $X any better?

For the most part, "termination" and "transfer" are two different animals. Termination of a DB plan can permit a participant to elect a transfer, but not require it. Most likely, the plan document will already note the options available to a plan participant.

Others will disagree.

Absolutely. And if the attorney you interview does not immediately know the importance of a QDRO, then keep looking.

Probalby depends on the exact plan wording. Most situations I see would require (at least) vesting of any participant whose employment severed in the plan year in which the plan termination occurred. I don't think date of payment is relevant, but check the document. Other opinions?

Earlier discussion thread on this topic: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...08&hl=teamsters BTW, as of today, freeERISA.com did not have a 5500 after the plan yer beginning in 1999. Don't know why.

The attorneys who contribute to these Message Boards will be better informed than I, but assuming anything about guardianship could be hasty. There is a difference between guardianship of the minor and guardianship of the minor's estate.

No such experience, but there is the school of thought that P.T. Barnum was wrong. It's every 30 seconds.

"...never heard of having a separate 401(k) Plan checking account..." Yikes! Just because it is a small plan does not mean it should not be operated correctly, and prudently. Since the assets of the plan are not assets of the plan sponsor, why would anyone want to cast doubt on that and commingle, even in the slightest way? BTW, it might be prudent to review the new small plan audit requirements. This plan might not be exempt.

Good comments all. A possible answer to the original question is found Mike's first comment. For example, the employer could make an administrative decision regarding "who pays" as long as that practice does not conflict with the plan.