david rigby

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

Are we assuming that the IRC 412 minimum for the cash balance plan is something less than the 10.5%? Has there been an actual cash contribution to the CB plan, or just an "allocation"? If so, is any of it deposited in the following plan year? Do plan year and company fiscal year coincide?

Or read the excellent Q&A column here .

The 5310 is an IRS form. The IRS website has some statistical information, but neither your question nor that form number seems to be included. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/content/0,,id=...d=97166,00.html Your reference to the PBGC implies you are inquiring about DB plans. The PBGC website has some statistical information, but it seems to be related primarily to "trusteed" plans. http://www.pbgc.gov/publications/databook/default.htm

As implied by QDROphile, there is a difference between a "former participant" and "an inactive participant".

See Q&A-2 from IRS Notice 89-52: "Q-2: What are the consequences of a late payment of a quarterly installment? A-2: Section 412(B)(5) requires that the funding standard account ("FSA") be charged with interest at the appropriate rate, consistent with the rate or rates of interest used under the plan to determine costs (the "applicable interest rate for the FSA"). However, if there is a late payment of a quarterly installment, a portion of the interest charged to the FSA is based on the rate required under section 412(m)(1). The amount of interest charged to the FSA attributable to the late amount is based on 175% of the Federal mid-term rate (as in effect under section 1274 for the first month of the plan year) or if greater, the otherwise applicable interest rate for the FSA. The interest is charged from the due date to the date the late amount is actually contributed (regardless of the date such contribution is deemed to have been contributed under section 412©(10)). However, with respect to the first quarterly installment for the 1989 plan year, the interest rate under section 412(m)(1)(A) (i.e., 175% of the Federal mid-term rate) will not apply until 30 days after the publication of this notice in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Furthermore, for a nonmultiemployer defined benefit plan, if the aggregate amount of all underpayments of quarterly installments and other payments required under section 412 exceeds $1,000,000, a lien in favor of the plan may arise under section 412(n) on the property of the person who failed to make the payment to the plan.

As pointed out by mbozek, the correct revenue ruling should be 81-114, http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1981/revrul81-114.htm

Not likely. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16430 In addition to that link, there may be other discussion threads on this point. Click on the Search button at the top of the page.

Probably should start by reviewing the plan document provisions related to payment of expenses, not just what the employer typically does.

1. Does the plan say anything about the timing of the contribution? 2. Sounds like negative earnings. Welcome to the 21st century.

I am saddened to see such phrases as "morality aside" and "putting aside the moral issue"? Morality is always relevant. True, there might be differences of opinion, but that does not negate the issue.

Does it matter? For example, if the projected benefit is the 415 limit (either one), it may not matter how you got there. Let's be reasonable out there.

Kirk's summary appears to be consistent with most similar prior discussions on these Message Boards. And has been suggested before, a consensus here is (or should be) just as good as statutory authority.

Nothing very obvious on the DOL/PWBA website. Perhaps you can go there and ask them that question. http://askpwba.dol.gov/

Not trying to read something sinister into the original question, but it seems so simple as to be surprising. I wonder if there is something else going on. For example, is someone trying to arrive at a particular answer? Is this a new plan?