david rigby

2muchstress is correct: use of the word "forfeit" is misleading. Clearly, you were 100% vested in this acount.It appears that they "wiped out" your account, but it is not yet apparent why. Either it was due to the plan provisions that apply some processing fee against a distribution, or because they considered you a "lost participant". If the latter, you are no longer lost, and they should restore your account balance immediately. If the former, make sure that the plan permits such fees, not just an administrative application. (Of course, it is possible that both of the above situations apply.)

Or maybe the question relates to the possible investment in tax exempt securities?

Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by "tax qualified fund?"

Not sure if I am certain of your terminology. If you are asking if a regular retirment benefit, probably received monthly or quarterly, can be rolled over to an IRA, the answer is no, because a rollover cannot be "one of a series of periodic payments." (That quote is from memory; not sure if my quote is exact.) Alternatively, if you are asking if the entire value of the lifetime benefit can be rolled over to an IRA, and then paid monthly from there, the answer if probably no. That would be governed by the terms of the plan document. If the plan had permitted it, that would be described as a "lump sum option." Most plans do not permit any change in the form of distribution once payments have commenced. Second alternative: if you are referring to a benefit under plan X that is not yet in pay status, the answer is probably no. It is likely that the plan does not make any distribution until the participant has some severance of employment (retirement, death, disability, quit, etc.) If there has been a severance, but the participant is not yet old enough to commence receipt (for example, age 55), the terms of the plan will govern whether a lump sum option is available at that time.

Going back to the original post, if the TPA is not aware that employees in question are terminated, then they will continue to request other census data, such as compensation. If that is part of the problem, they also need the termination date and the number of hours worked in the last year of employment.

http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/2001/revrul2001-62.htm I believe that the table is required for "annuity starting dates on or after 12/31/02". The plan year is not relevant. It can be adopted with an earlier effective date. The adoption date is no later than the last day of the plan year which contains the effective date.

ACP problems are likely, whether it is widely used or not. But ask why the sponsor is considering this course of action. Perhaps there is another way to address the issue.

Those are two different things. Is there a legitimate "mistake of fact"? Oh wait, does not matter, since you said it was three years ago.

Why did they "overfund"?

I see no reason to require a separate plan, but several reasons to do it anyway. - probably easier to communicate initially and ongoing, - easier to deal with potentially different plan provisions, investment options, - easier to change or shut down, - etc. In other words, "cleaner" administration for both plans.

Sounds like similar to this? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16637

See last paragraph on Page 2-3 of this September 2002 document: http://www.soa.org/sections/076_tino_sypher.pdf

You can probably find lots of references to Canadian benefits using the search feature on the main BenefitsLink page. That could serve as a useful introduction, but the best advice would be to hire someone who actually has experience with this. All of the major consulting firms, and some of the slightly smaller firms, have offices/affiliates in Canada.

Interesting discussion (well, sort of). Just in case readers want to see the statute referenced: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/1108.html

Earlier discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15011

http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1994/revrul94-75.htm

Fair enough. You might start with the IRS regs. under 412(i) http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html A search of these Message Boards may be useful as well.

This might be a better source of help for you. http://www.actuary.org/palprogram.htm

You may be able to search for an actuary (preferably one who specializes in pension/retirement issues) in your area. Here is the website for the Society of Actuaries, click on the Directory of Actuarial Memberships.

Forgive for being picky, but let's ask why first. Is this prior thread relevant? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15668

I believe that plan A's NRA must be preserved for the plan A portion of the benefit. But you have to look to the document to see what happens next. NRA (as defined in the Code) is for the purpose (primarily) of setting 100% vesting, as RTK states. Look to the plan for its definition of NRD.

Yes. Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

How about taking the position that the generic business is "consulting", but the specific business service being provided is "engineering." Don't get hung up on references to "consulting". You could also apply that word to many things, including legal advice.

See IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Usually, a plan will include a pretty specific definition of "beneficiary" and what death benefit is payable. If there is no prior QDRO, then a prior spouse will not impact what death benefit might be payable to the current spouse. See especially Q&A-20 for comments on QPSA in a DC plan. A pre-nuptial agreement cannot be enforced to satisfy spousal consent requirement. See Q&A-28.

Uh....... Please provide a little more detail in your question, especially what you mean by "prior service."