david rigby

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."

Since the original post stated "church", I assume the audit has nothing to do with the IRS, but is related to some internal (or CPA audit) of the plan records. (Of course, this could be a "church plan" that has elected to be in compliance with ERISA.) Katherine's advice seems pretty good to this non-lawyer. If your father believes the audit is incorrect, it is very reasonable to request that the pension board provide documentation of why they want to reduce his benefit, with as much detail as possible. He may need a legal representative.

If the proposed benefit is intended to offer a lump sum whose present value is less than the 417 present value, does not sound kosher to me.

Interesting question. Just guessing, but it seems that your "stepping into the shoes" logic is a good start, assuming you mean that the AP gets the same diversification rights as the participant. However, it may be that the plan can also be more generous than this.

Q&A 28 from the 2002 Gray Book: QUESTION 28 Retroactive Increases to Reflect EGTRRA Pay Cap IRS Notice 2001-56 explained that it is acceptable to take into account earnings of a participant up to $200,000 in periods prior to 2002 for purposes of determining benefit accruals for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2002. An example in the notice demonstrates this for a final average pay plan. Can an accumulation plan, including a cash balance plan, provide additional accruals on incremental pay up to the new limit for past years? May additional accruals be provided to active employees in the first year the EGTRRA change is effective even if the employee does not otherwise accrue additional benefits under the plan's benefit formula (for example, due to a failure to complete 1000 hours of service)? RESPONSE A plan sponsor is not precluded from creating any particular plan formula effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2002, as long as it specifies that pay for the current or any prior year in excess of the new limit is not considered. Thus, an accumulation plan, including a cash balance plan, can be amended to provide that a participant's accrued benefit as of the beginning of the 2002 plan year is equal to the benefit that would have resulted had the compensation limit been $200,000 for 1994 through 2001. The difference between this amount and the accrued benefit as of the end of the 2001 plan year (based on compensation limited to $150,000, as indexed) is treated as an accrual during 2002. The modified formula must also meet any additional applicable qualification rules. For nondiscrimination testing, for example, all the additional accruals need to be tested in the current year, based on the usual testing options of annual, accrued-to-date or projected testing. Employees currently providing services to the employer may be included when providing these additional accruals even if they would not otherwise accrue benefits under the existing plan formula. As a result, these current employees would be "benefiting" and would be considered as such in applying all relevant coverage, nondiscrimination and minimum participation requirements. If the individual is no longer providing services after the effective date of the new limit, then the individual is consider a "former employee" and separate testing under the rules for former employees is required if additional accruals of any type, including accruals to take into account the additional compensation, are provided. See Question 27 for additional information on minimum participation, coverage and nondiscrimination rules applicable to these accruals.

I cannot locate anything directly addressing the question of a plan year the begins other than the first day of a month. However, Q&A-1 from Notice 89-52 states "...quarterly installments are due 15 days after the end of each quarter." It does not refer to "calendar quarter". In addition, the first paragraph of the "Background" section of Notice 95-31 includes "...quarterly contributions are made not later than 15 days after the end of each quarter of the plan year." My hunch would be to use a literal read of the language. For example, I have a plan that begins on March 31. I think the first quarterly contribution due date is July 14.

Let's see if this works.

I agree with Blinky's comment that it is not "reasonable" under the perspective of the IRS. See GrayBook Q&A's 1993-10, 1993-12, and 1999-6. In the latter, the IRS states that the

I agree.

How about the phrase quoted above: "...and the participant has a court order to such effect..."?

Non-lawyer opinion. "Legally separated" means a court is involved. A couple can get "separated", even with a "signed separation agreement" without going to court, but the term in the reg. is intentional, and to make sure it has a judge behind it.

http://www.actuary.org/pdf/practnotes/pension_0501.pdf

Yes. I should have been a bit more specific. If the form of benefit includes a survivor benefit to a specific person, then it is unlikely any pension plan would allow a change following commencement.

Not sure I agree with Keith's last comment, although the rest of his answer is excellent. Absent a conditional spousal waiver as Keith mentions, if a participant is receiving a retirement benefit under a life with 15 year certain form (for example), the plan does not care who the beneficiary is. The plan's concern is that the form of benefit cannot change.

Denied!