david rigby

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.

Not sure if the original post wanted to change the life insurance, but death benefits above the J&S are not protected under 411(d)(6). Also, I think the original question is saying that the insurance in force prior to the freeze now exceeds the 100 x AB amount ? If the plan administrator maintains that coverage, then death will give the plan a large gain, but the insurance is probably term coverage, so not likely.

Probably not. My copy of the IRC does not have a 402(a)(8). Here is the entire text of 402(a): (a) Taxability Of Beneficiary Of Exempt Trust. -- Except as otherwise provided in this section, any amount actually distributed to any distributee by any employees' trust described in section 401(a) which is exempt from tax under section 501(a) shall be taxable to the distributee, in the taxable year of the distributee in which distributed, under section 72 (relating to annuities). Do you mean to refer to a different section ?

I would say definitely check with legal counsel. At a 57% measurement, there is not much doubt about a partial termination, but you may wish to review earlier discussion threads here on this topic. Try the search feature.

Not sure of other cites, but these are from the Gray Book: QUESTION 93-14 Special Unfunded Current Liability Funding Limit -- Various issues The following questions relate to the special maximum deductible limit under §404(a)(1)(D) which is equal to the unfunded current liability: (a) Are plan assets reduced by the credit balance in the funding standard account? (B) Should the unfunded be projected to year-end? © Does this calculation override the Full Funding Limitation? For example, the regular Full Funding Limitation is zero, but the Unfunded Current Liability is $60. Is the deductible limit $60? RESPONSE (a) No. Plan assets are only reduced by undeducted contributions. (B) Yes. The unfunded current liability is projected to the end of the plan year. (See Question 11). © Yes. The maximum deduction limit under §404(a)(1)(A), including the full funding limitation, does not apply to the deductibility of the unfunded current liability under §404(a)(1)(D). Therefore, in the example, $60 would be deductible. QUESTION 95-18 Funding Limits -- Determination Date for Unfunded Current Liability Limit Question 33 from the 1992 Gray Book dealt with the timing of contributions for purposes of deductibility when the maximum deductible amount was derived from the minimum required contribution. The answer to that question stated that only the amount of the contribution needed to avoid a funding deficiency on the date that the contribution was actually made would be deductible. Is this also true if the maximum deductible amount is dependent on the unfunded current liability of IRC §404(a)(1)(D)? For example, assume that the beginning-of-year unfunded current liability (including “normal cost”) is $1,000,000, and that the end-of-year unfunded current liability is $1,070,000. If the plan sponsor were to make a contribution of $1,070,000 on the first day of the year, would the entire amount be deductible, or only the first $1,000,000? RESPONSE: Existing guidance does not deal with whether (and how) the section 404(a)(1)(D) limit may be adjusted to the end of the year and whether the timing of the contribution affects the deductible amount.

More generally, no, passing 410(B) does not mean that you pass 401(a)(4). But, perhaps you have additional details to share.

Probably, but that still leaves a confusion with respect to the QDRO.

Check plan provisions carefully, but normally a participant's benefit and vesting will be determined by the plan terms in effect at the severance of employment. The obvious exception would be a plan amendment which has a retroactive effective date.

"...the EGTRRA amendment..."? Sounds like you want to adopt certain of the voluntary provisions of EGTRRA (increase to DC contribution limits ?) but not others (comp limit). That is permitted.

In your first example, the maximum permitted disparity is 22.75% (.65 x 35) I'm not sure that you have to use plan language to limit to 39 years, as long as plan language that limits to 22.75%. Before we analyze your second example, are you sure there are any employees who have .75% ? There is no statutory adjustment for the 10cc form of payment. I can find no regulatory adjustment explicitly defined. See IRS Reg. 1.401(l)-(3)(B)(4)(iii)(B): "(B) Level Annuity Forms. In the case of an optional form of benefit payable as a level annuity over a period of not less than the life of the employee, the optional form must satisfy the maximum permitted disparity requirement of this paragraph (B). Thus, for example, if the form of a defined benefit plan's normal retirement benefit is an annuity for life with a 10-year certain feature and the plan permits employees to elect an optional form of benefit in the form of a straight life annuity, the plan must satisfy the maximum disparity requirement of this paragraph (B) with respect to each of the optional forms of benefit. An annuity that decreases only after the death of the employee, or that decreases only after the death of either the employee or the joint annuitant, is considered a level annuity for purposes of this paragraph (B)."

" don't need a $2 bill...I used to teach interest theory to actuaries at the university level." Hmmm. Does this mean your university compensation was so great that you don't need anymore money? Or, perhaps those actuaries are so greatful they they send you money all the time?

An earlier related thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17126

I believe there are some qualified (cash balance) plans that define NRA (or is it NRD?) as the earlier of age 30 or 5 years of service.

Is this it? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13798