david rigby

Prior discussion might be useful: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17383

It is possible that such a template is used to select and print the correct plan provisions from a master word-processing document, rather than for general distribution.

In a nutshell, cost includes built in administrative costs (commissions, etc) that seems pretty high.

Check the plan document for exact definition of the integration level. If it is like most, it will refer to (or restate) the definition in IRC 401(l)(5)(E). However, variation possible under the regs. The usual definition of Covered Compensation refers to a 35-year average calculated at a particular point in time (that is, look backwards 35 years). A determination date prior to that point will assume the SS wage base remains level until that point.

You may not believe this, but it's kind of fun for us non-lawyers to read lawyers arguing. Of course, I make no claim about whether any arguments have swayed my opinion.

No. Have you asked him? (Click on the link to his name.)

The IRS has stated informally that a change in the mortality tabe for current liability purposes will come thru a proposed regulation.

IRC 415(B)(1) states the maximum benefit as the lesser of the 100% of high 3 year average or $X (now $160K, indexed). IRC 415(B)(4) states "notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this subsection, the benefits payable... shall be deemed not to exceed the limitations ... if the reitement benefits ... do not exceed $10,000..." Note that - "subsection" refers to 415(B), - the $10K is not indexed. Also note subsection (4)(B): the employer cannot at any time have maintained a DC plan covering this participant.

Might not help, but this earlier thread (and the threads it references) might address your question. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8785

"terminate" or "merge" These are not the same thing. Which is it?

The following website leaves a lot to be desired both visually and organizationally, but it has very good content. http://www.benefitsattorney.com Go to the drop down menu, scroll down to Charts and select "Choosing Among 401(k), 403(B), and 457(B) Plans".

Think of it this way. The catch-up applies only if the participant reaches the least of: - the 402(g) limit, currently $11K, - the limit imposed by the ADP test, - a limit imposed by the plan, for example, max. 10% for HCEs.

I have found no other address, although it is possible that a better address is available.

If additional cash is available, this couple might be a good candidate for a DB plan also.

I think the IRS issues a new Rev. Proc every January. This is applicable for 2002: http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2002-8.shtml If you mail your application after the next Rev. Proc is issued, then the $2,200 fee might be incorrect. BTW, I assisted a client in filing a waiver request last December. Still have not heard from the IRS.

Non-lawyer opinion: As always, the terms of a plan document are important. If the employer (even a government one) is stating that they plan to ignore the document, good legal advice might be appropriate. In addition, "state laws vary."

B is not "left in the cold because he is under age 50". He simply does not meet the statutory definition that permits a catch-up contribution.

"Since the owner (only key employee) will have high benefits in the DB, all plans will be top heavy for 2002." If the plans have common Key EEs, they must be aggregated to determine top-heav status. It does not matter whether one plan is top-heavy by itself. A couple of miscellaneous questions: 1. Why terminate any plan? 2. Why have a floor-offset plan? These are summarized by the generic question: what is the goal of the plan sponsor? P.S. it might help to have some demographics: The owner is the only Key EE. Is he also the only HCE? Approximate age of the owner? Approximate age the owner wishes to retire? Any NHCE's older than the owner?

See original langauge in EGTRRA, section 619. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107...pMUUQL:e222716:

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=9041 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17209

Never heard of any. Not sure I would recommend it anyway. My recommendation is twofold: find someone to study with, and try to get in one of the classes taught by Rick Groszkiewicz . Look him up in the Directory of Actuarial Memberships at http://www.soa.org .

That sounds like the most likely scenario. But, is 415 an issue? If so, don't forget to check that lump sum limit.

Oops, MGB is correct. A plan spinoff or merger always has the potential of creating exceptions.

A frozen plan is not the same as a terminated plan.

Never an automatic approval to change the valuation date to anything other than the first day of the plan year. The other implict part of your question is can you change the funding method (other than valuation date) if within 5 years of the plan's inception? Per phone discussion with IRS rep several years ago, the establishment of a funding method at plan inception is not a "change", so the answer is Yes.