david rigby

Any link to other testimony?

Pardon my ignorance, but why do you need a determination letter to amend a plan in order to discriminate against HCEs?

Anyone want to share the "magic number"? Heck, we might even be interested in "Larry's show".

Probably a terminology distinction. Looks like the post meant to state that Mom is claimed as a dependent for tax purposes. MGB is exactly correct that tax withholding is not relevant. If that is what you mean, then Mom's medical expenses should be "coverable" under the reimbursement account. Note that this answer is not related to whether Mom is a covered dependent under the employee's medical benefits ("health insurance', etc.) sponsored by the employer.

What a nuisance. Sounds like this plan sponsor is a candidate for a different plan design, such as discretionary profit-sharing, or perhaps amend the plan to limit contributions in such a manner to minimize the liklihood of failing the test. P.S. is the plan top-heavy? P.P.S. At what level (numerically), is the ADP test failing?

Oh no! Jack Nicholson plays a retired actuary. http://www.aboutschmidtmovie.com

Modified-cash-refund is discussed in section 3.6 of Pension Mathematics for Actuaries by Arthur W. Anderson. Page 71 in the second edition. It may be discussed somewhere in an acutarial study note. Another source might be http://www.actuariallibrary.org/

Is this what you have in mind? http://www.freeerisa.com/

The TPA should probably not make this decision. Get the client and the client's attorney to do that.

This may seem petty, but as usual, actuaries disagree. Here goes: In selecting an AVA, I have chosen one of the pre-approved methods in Rev. Proc. 2000-40. Note that each of Approvals 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 uses the phrase "...no greater than 120% and no less than 80% of fair market value...". However, I have chosen a slight difference: use of a corridor of 90% to 110%. Does anyone think this distinction means I am not using a pre-approved method?

415 was not repealed; subsection 415(e) was repealed, but this impacts only the benefits under one or both plans. Deductibility is governed by IRC 404. $40,000 is the section 415© limit on the DC plan annual addition for 2002 (ignoring future indexing and "catch-up" contributions). You are probably referring to section 404(a)(7). The maximum deductible is limited to the greater of the IRC section 412 minimum for the DB plan or 25% of compensation. Thus, it is possible that the employer may not be able to deduct all contributions. If that situation arises, the next question usually involves carryover, rather than permanently losing a deduction.

Actually, Derrin Watson has already answered that question: http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi...d=234&mode=read

This just posted on BenefitsLink: http://www.dor.state.nc.us/practitioner/EG...RA_pension.html To this NC observer, it is quite a surprise due to the impact on revenues, probably not noticed by most legislators.

You attorneys sure are a fun bunch.

The offset should be determined based on factors, definitions, and administrative practices in effect at date of plan freeze.

Places in the Bible where automobiles are mentioned. a. During the Exodus from Egypt, all the children of Israel were in one Caravan. b. In the book of Acts, we are told that the disciples were all in one Accord. c. In the book of Genesis 3, we read that God drove Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. We can only guess that it must have been in a (Plymouth) Fury. d. In Isaiah 40:31 we are told to "mount up with wings as Eagles".

Does the plan have a checking account, or cash account? If so, the ER can make a payment to that account, which is part of its $100K contribution. Then the participant can be paid from that account. Much better audit trail. P.S. If the plan does not currently have such an account, this would be a good time to create one.

If "Guy" refers to a plan covering only one person (or husband and wife), don't think about a waiver. Think about amending the plan, such as a plan freeze.

That is the usual meaning of "freeze". I suggest a freeze amendment be explicit about freezing benefits, service, and participation. Also, look to see if there are ancillary benefits that you might want to eliminate or "tighten"; for example, a disability benefit is not 411(d)(6) protected.

The first thing to do is refuse to work on this plan!!! Then, triple your fee quote (it won't be enough).

Yes. But don't forget about employee relations problems. There may also be "contract" issues, hence my reference to competent legal advice.

Several issues. For example, - Has the plan been amended? If so, then an amendment in the opposite direction could be a problem. - From your description, there appears to be a problem with the agreement between buyer and seller. This does not necessarily involve the plan. Plan and plan sponsor need legal advice.

The resident expert on this topic is Derrin Watson. He has column of Q&A's here.

Take? Pension and profit-sharing plans are (with a few specific exceptions) regulated by federal law. Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(13) provides that no plan shall permit a benefit to be "assigned or alienated." For example, this means that a creditor cannot get at the money, and the participant cannot do anything to give the money to a creditor; however, once a benefit is paid to a participant, then it is merely part of the participant's assets, no longer in the plan. Does this help?

Can you be more specific in describing your term "partial plan freeze"? Also, are any plan participants covered by a collective bargaining agreement?