david rigby

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.

Probably not. See subsection (B)(9) or (B)(13) of this section of ERISA: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/1321.html

Not so sure about the contention this is the auditor's job (I am not an auditor). Are they essentially suggesting that you balance your checkbook? Remember, it is the plan's accounts, for which the plan is responsible. The auditor's job is to review the work of the trustee and recordkeeper, and the plan sponsor.

Amounts which are eligible to be rolled over to an IRA (or plan of another employer), if paid in cash, are automatically subject to 20% withholding at the federal level. State laws vary, and some do require withholding. The "way around this" is to actually do the rollover, rather than take it in cash. See IRS Publication 575 page 8.

Dave's is better.

First things first. The charges and credits are what they are. Actual contibutions made are included (whether or not deducted). If the FFL determination does not calculate a FFC, then you don't need one. I see no reason to change the method for this reason. It appears that the UCL is intended to override the FFL, both from a plain reading of the statute and from these three Q&A's from the Gray Book. QUESTION 2002-3 Funding: Limit on Deductible Contribution to Unfunded Current Liability EGTRRA extends the IRC 404(a)(1)(D) "Unfunded Current Liability" deduction to multiemployer plans and to plans that cover 100 or fewer participants. However, for plans covering 100 or fewer participants, unfunded current liability shall not include liabilities attributable to benefit increases to highly compensated employees from amendments made or effective (whichever is later) within the last 2 years. 1) When does the "last two years" begin? 2) Is a plan year of less than 12 months a "year" for "last two years" purposes? 3) Does the prohibition on reflecting recent amendments apply to multiemployer plans that cover 100 or fewer participants? 4) For this purpose, is the date on which a plan amendment is formally adopted the date it is “made”, or may an earlier date be considered the date an amendment is made if the plan is operated consistent with the amendment for amendments that reflect changes in the law or annual updates of IRC limits? 5) If an amendment is adopted under IRC 412©(8), is the date on which it is "made" deemed to be the start of the plan year for which it is treated as effective for IRC 412 purposes? RESPONSE 1) Two years prior to the beginning of the plan year for which current liability is determined. 2) No, a short plan year is not a year for this purpose. 3) Yes. 4) An amendment is made on the date it is formally adopted. Annual cost of living increases in statutory limits such as those in IRC §§401(a)(17) and 415(B) are not considered "amendments" for this purpose. No guidance was given as to whether changes made at the time of EGTRRA compliance would be considered "amendments" for this purpose. 5) No, for this purpose, the date the amendment is made is the date as of which the amendment is adopted. QUESTION 1993-14 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 2000-13 Funding: Adjustment for Undeducted Contribution in Unfunded Current Liability A plan wants to use the maximum deductible limit under Code section 404(a)(1)(D) of 100% of the unfunded current liability. In determining the unfunded current liability, do you subtract from the assets any carryforwards under §404(a)(1)(E)? RESPONSE When calculating any component of the maximum deductible contribution under 404(a)(1) for a plan year, you must exclude from plan assets the amount of any employer contributions not yet deducted in prior plan years and carried forward under §404(a)(1)(E).

Try this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7771

Try this discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16663

Although not mentioned specifically in the above circumstances, it may be that a collective bargaining agreement exists, which could require some payment, whether or not labeled as "severance". If the payment was stopped or altered, that might point to an issue of enforcing (or interpreting) the CBA.

The formula in the instructions assumes (essentially) that all employer contributions and benefit payments are made in the middle of the plan year. There is no adjustment for any type of earnings, expenses, accrued items, etc. Therefore, the calculated investment return is net of expenses.

The most common method of recognizing this is to determine the normal cost as a whole. Then subtract the expected EE contributions to yield the ER normal cost. Note that Line 9b of the Schedule B asks for the "Employer' normal cost". Although not exactly on point, the above is supported by Q&A 97-10 from the GrayBook: "Funding: Expected Increase in Current Liability for Contributory Plans For a contributory DB plan, should the "expected increase in current liability due to benefits accruing during the plan year" (shown in lines 1d(2)(B) and 1d(3)(B) of the Schedule b) be a net amount (i.e., only employer-provided) or a gross amount including the employee-provided value? RESPONSE The net value should be used, since it is used as an offset to the employer normal cost from the FSA when calculating the additional funding charge." Notice that, except in the case of the Aggregate Method, this means that the Employer pays the full cost of any amortization (gain/loss, plan amendments, asssumption changes, etc.)

I'm not an accountant either, but it seems obvious that the 20K was not contributed for the 10/31/01 plan year since it was made after 7/15/02. Therefore, in order to deduct it in the 10/31/02 fiscal year, it has to be for the 10/31/02 plan year. Was there a need for additional funding (plan termination in process)?