david rigby

...unless the plan provisions make them applicable.

Here is the table I mentioned above. Please note that it is not guaranteed to be the 1971 table projected to 1980, only that its filename leads me to think that. I have not verified any projection.

Several prior discussions related to this topic. You might try the Search feature. Here is one of them: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15887

Interesting discussion. However, Kirk I'm confused by your statement: To this actuary, that seems backwards. The investment policy should come first, then the choice of an assumed rate of return.

Yes. the valuation can reflect any amendment that becomes effective during the plan year, as long as it is adopted prior to 2-1/2 months after the end of the plan year. But be careful to recognize the correct benefits. If the valuation does not include any normal cost, that is essentially assuming that no one will have 1000+ hours prior to the freeze. Is that a realistic assumption? Another caution: the effective date of the freeze will be the later of the effective date in the amendment or 45 days after the distribution of the 204(h) notice. Final caution: the IRS has stated informally that the use of the Aggregate Method is not appropriate for a frozen plan. Gray Book. Let me know if you need the specific cites.

That might be a bit oversimplified. For example, I have seen lots of documents that include the "applicable mortality table as defined in Rev. Ruling 95-6". So, amendment would be required.

Probably not. Consider "salary earned in December". If that is paid in January, then it is part of January wages, and would be included in the W-2 for the January year. However, as is often the case, a careful reading of the terms of the plan may be in order.

As usual, MGB is correct. Gary, here is a link to the Revenue Ruling: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/2001/revrul2001-62.htm

I agree. Here is a link to the reg.

I could be missing something, but I see no contradiction. The plan defines compensation and average compensation. The accrual fraction does not alter those definitions.

...and page 7 of the instructions also describe this. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5500.pdf

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