david rigby

"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.

I don't know if Blinky will answer that question. I would not. This message board is not the place to "trash" other professionals, in any discipline, even if sometimes they might deserve it. None of us are perfect. However, the point has been made very strongly by several contributors that the original suggested plan contribution does not fit with the suggested plan design. This does not mean that the result is not acceptable under the tax laws for determining funding and deductions. But, proceed at your own risk. Or at the risk of overpaying. A lot.

"...the TRS DB plan will have a significant unfunded liability with respect to the doctors." This may be true, but not necessarily. Depends on plan provisions, and whether any planning is done before "...the FPP is dissolved."

http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/2002/revrul2002-22.htm