david rigby

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.

I think all references to catch-up contributions assume the plan has been amended to include that.

This is a good start. However, I hope that we can get more detail. For example, the two states I deal with most, NC and VA, both require 4% withholding, but the CIGNA summary only states that withholding is required.

There is nothing in IRS Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-3(B), which defines the DB safe harbor, that references coverage. That is IRC 410(B).

He said "some ethics".

Incorrect. Next.

Here is the reg. http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/PWBA/Title_2...2520.104b-4.htm

What is a "trustee's account"? On what basis is DOL (or anyone) trying to take from Peter to pay Paul?

Is there any chance these are not unrelated employers? Does the EE have any ownership (directly or indirectly) in the first employer?

Not sure if this is definitive, but IRC 7503 might help. http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-F-77-7503.html

There have been a few discussions on these boards related to purchasing an annuity without participant direction. Try the Search feature.

You may also need to pay attention to when the purchase occurred, not just the plan merger. On second thought, you did not state "merger", but I assume that's what the "transfer" is. If not, please provide some description.

Non-lawyer comment: seems like the choice of that investment (in the first place) was part of the fiduciary decision. This discussion might be a start: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=9656

I think you got the first part only. Section 645(a)(1) amends IRC411(d)(6) by adding subsections D (dealing with transfers) and E (dealing with elimination of optional forms of benefit). Section 645(a)(2) amends ERISA. Note that the added subsection E starts with "Except to the extent provided in regulations..."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107...7:H.R.1836.ENR: I think the cite is Act section 645.