david rigby

Your reference to scanned forms is probably the Form 5500. As you state, the 5310 and instruction can be printed from the IRS website. Just fill it in. BTW, if he "insists on doing it himself", why is he asking your help?

I don't think this question should be concerned with any non-qualifed plan. The qualified plan is required to follow the terms of the plan, and applicable statute and regulations. Many non-qualifed plans merely define a target, offset by whatever the qualified plan provides. Thus, the non-qualifed plan is not required to mimic the qualified plan by including an actuarial increase post NRD.

Not quite all non-cash incentives are crap. For example, an extra week of vacation.

naked pizza party with cash.

Based on similar inquiries on these Message Boards, I'll bet there is an expectation that the condominium will be used by an employee/officer/owner. Uh oh. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7482 Take Kirk's advice.

In case you are not aware, you can look for those other discussion threads using the Search feature.

Link to that Rev. Ruling http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2001-51.shtml

Just to be sure, what interest rate and mortality table is this based on?

I am certainly no expert, but is it not possible that a divorce award would give her X% of his income, including retirment income, and all of that would be part of alimony? If alimony, he would deduct it and she pays the tax. Is this plausible?

Thomas is great: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:HR03448:|TOM:/bss/d104query.html|

It is possible that, when he takes a distribution from his plan (apparently a DC plan), then the money resides in his personal account(s). Perhaps that will automatically generate payment to her. Let's not forget to read the document.

Wow. Was there really a 401(k) balance thirty years ago? Non-lawyer comments: - whether or not a court will re-open a settlement is probably governed by state law and precedent, and maybe by significance of the claim. - since there was no such thing as a QDRO prior to 1984, the court might be willing to look at it. - the terms of the divorce settlement might already (indirectly) address the issue. This might be relevant in determining whether the court wants to re-open. This assumes the plan in question is not sponsored by a governmental unit. There have been many discussion threads related to QDROs. You might try the search feature for more info.

I hope that the plan, the trustee, and the check processor all have their own separate legal opinions on this. At the very best, looks like a recipe for confusion.

That seems backwards to me. Are you referring to a company that processes checks? That sounds like an arrangement where the plan (or trustee) is subcontracting some administrative function. That does not (should not) mean they are the payor. Maybe this is "form over substance"?

This should not be a problem. It appears from the definition given that the plan is intended to use IRS safe harbor provisions relating to SS integration. The last sentence of IRS reg. 1.401(l)-3(d)(4) should provide the answer to this question: "(4) Single Dollar Amount. The requirement of this paragraph (d)(4) is satisfied only if the integration or offset level under the plan for all employees is a single dollar amount (either specified in the plan or determined under a formula specified in the plan) that does not exceed the greater of $10,000 or one-half of the covered compensation of an individual who attains social security retirement age in the calendar year in which the plan year begins. In the case of a calendar year in which no individual could attain social security retirement age, for example, the year 2003, this rule is applied using covered compensation of an individual attaining social security retirement age in the preceding calendar year." My understanding of this last sentence is one-half of the CC for someone attaining 65 in 1937: one-half of $39,444 is $19,722. Anyone agree or disagree?

"rouge"? Let's assume you mean "rogue", but it's funny either way.

I hope the document is more specific than that in its definition. Can you give us the exact language?

This Q&A is from the 1999 Gray Book: QUESTION #19 Nondiscrimination: Nondiscriminatory Benefits, Rights and Features An employer has a profit sharing plan with individually directed accounts at a major mutual fund house. The participants are all being given the option of electing to use an investment manager for their accounts if they so desire. The management fees would be paid directly from the participant's account. Only the HCEs have account balances at the minimum amount necessary, as established by the investment manager, to be serviced by the manager. There is a concern that the use of investment managers by the HCEs would violate the benefits, rights and features requirements of the non-discrimination rules. Is this an issue? RESPONSE Yes, there is an issue. If the option of using individually directed accounts is only effectively available to HCEs, the plan is in violation of the nondiscriminatory benefits, rights and features requirement.

Does the doc have an auditor that can help? Does anyone have summary of payroll records or W2s? For example, if you find that no PT employee earned over $4000 in 1998, then you can reasonably assume all were under 1000 hours.

Sufficient for what?

To be fair, this came from the 12/24/02 online edition of plansponsor.com, crediting "Anonymous sources at the Portland Chapter of the Western Pension and Benefits Conference have contributed a little holiday "spirit" for all of us to share."

"Calculate" a 100% match for 10 participants? How hard can that be? Fix it.

This link can take you to any state insurance department. http://www.naic.org/1regulator/usamap.htm

Yep. The process probably has lots of other benefits also. For example, when we balance assets for DB plans, it is not uncommon to find a contribution or benefit payment was credited to the DB plan instead of the DC plan. Not a major problem, but one that is easily missed unless you are paying attention.

I think the rules can be summarized as: - IRA's can be combined to determine the total RMD, and then the actual distribution can be from one or more, although that may cause documentation concerns. - Each qualified plan stands on its own for determining and completing the RMD.