david rigby

Employee terminated employment in 1988 (25% vested). EE received a lump sum distribution in 1995. Now rehired, and re-terminated. Refer to IRS Reg. 1.411(a)-7(d)(4). http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Last paragraph of subsection (ii) indicates that a distribution due to participation is defined as not later than the close of the second plan year following the plan year or termination of employment. Does that mean that a lump sum paid at a later date voids the conditions given to disregard prior service?

I believe that the 10% limitation applies to employer stock and property. Review these earlier discussions to see if they help: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16557 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14565

What is the vesting date? Did benefits commence 11/1/99?

Get thee to an attorney!

Careful. You might get both!

Perhaps this Q&A column can help: http://www.benefitslink.com/qa_columns/who...yer/index.shtml

Yes! That is the whole point, to shift the responsibility to later Presidents, later Congress, later taxpayers. Of course, every prior elected official has done the same thing.

Does the plan require hours? If so, any reason to inhibit the plan being amended otherwise? Alternatively, do you care? Normally, it is the plan sponsor who reports hours and comp. If you tell the sponsor, that the plan requires hours for participation/accrual, then either the sponsor can provide corrected hours data, or see above.

If you think this has no impact on DB plans, you have not read between the lines yet, or thought forward a couple of years. BTW, I am referring to a negative impact. However, every prior attempt at simplification has been "complification."

Additional reading material from Treasury website. Start on page 118: http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/rep...luebook2003.pdf

Might need tax treaty: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/

Please don't forget to leave some for your EA.

As is often the case, one can find help by searching these Message Boards. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16873

I think MGB's comment from yesterday is still applicable. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=18218 Other items are not affected because they haven't gotten around to them yet.

The form designer could help by putting room for more than four.

Available here: http://www.dol.gov/pwba/5500main.html

If you have a phone number, call to remind them that the distribution has been reported to the IRS and the recipient will have a tax liability even if the check has not been cashed.

... and employees of A or B who do not meet the eligibility requirements of "their" plan on the day before the merger will be subject to plan C requirements. Or the plan C sponsor could amend Plan C (temporarily or otherwise) to be more generous.

No doubt this will come up at the Enrolled Actuaries meeting in March, if no other feedback sooner.

Does it instill confidence that a commissioner of the FTC is named "Swindle"? http://www.ftc.gov/bios/commissioners.htm

Is this a state-owned university?

Personal opinions and common sense are always useful. That's how we learn. I think your question boils down to a plan definition. The plan could (for example) define avg comp as the average of comp for all years in which the participant earned a year of service. If the plan is ambiguus, then you have the opportunity to use personal opinion and common sense to determine an administrative interpretation. Of course, precedent is important in such cases. And don't forget the provision in ERISA (and maybe in the plan document) to resolve questions in the favor of the participant.

Does the plan require the purchase of insurance or merely permit? If the former, then a plan amendment might be in order.

2%. OK, but remind the client that excess actual earnings goes to pay for such items as the insurance company's expenses and profit. Those items are emphasized somewhat less in a self-funded plan. And why does anyone want to pay more just so they can get a larger tax deduction?

Can't top that Kirk, but how you responded to it might also help answer the original question.