david rigby

Sure, lots of examples. Probably the "new" part of the original post is that it is new for that particular employer. However, there is one difference to remember. The "flex dollars" that are spent for medical/dental insurance, reimbursement accounts, etc. are not subject to FICA tax. If those dollars (usually, whatever is left over after all other choices) are placed in the employer's 401(k) plan, then FICA tax does apply.

Correct. Note also that if he outlives her, there will be no survivor benefit (unless specified by the plan), which is exactly the same as if there had been no divorce.

Highly unlikely. Virtually all pension plans state that the form of payment cannot be changed by either the plan or by the retiree once payments have commenced. A QDRO does not have this right either. BTW, it also very likely that the beneficiary under that J&S election is the soon-to-be-ex-wife, in name not "title". Thus, the divorce will have no bearing on her survivor rights; ditto if he remarries.

The portion sold to Buck was Unifi, which was primarily the outsourcing practice. In addition, I think the benefits practice that was formerly Kwasha went to Buck. But PwC had lots more benefits consultants that did not go to Buck. For example, a search of the Actuarial Directory shows that PwC employees over 240 actuaries worldwide, about 100 of which work in "retirement consulting".

An ex-PwC employee has told me that the benefits consultanting practice of PwC is not included in this spinoff/sale. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Sorry for being so ignorant, but can you define what you mean by "free riding"?

http://www.ibm.com/news/us/2002/07/30.html

Selling the tax benefits is a good idea, but I have found that selling the match is even better. Although the attorneys out there probably don't like it, I am fond of the phrase "free money".

Probably this EE is 100% vested. But, as always, it depends on what the amendment said.

I agree. And I suggest that the language in the 401(k) plan is deficient unless it already contains provision of what happens if "the other plan" does not (for whatever reason) provide the TH minimum.

According to this, Alabama is not at issue. http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/doc...update72602.pdf

What does the plan need prior service for? (Oops, I ended a sentence with a preposition. A thousand pardons.) If this is a DC plan, probably the only uses will be for determining eligibility service and vesting service.

Is there a need for a valuation at date of "transfer"? Does the plan (and/or administrative procedures) specify the timing of valuaitons?

And the TPA does not have one?

Perhaps this is a perfect example of "what does the plan say?" It is very common for a plan to include language that would answer the question "what happens if the participant dies without a beneficiary".

Get to that IRS reg. from here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

I read the sequence of events a bit differently. See above "...the plan was not fully funded as of the date of termination." How can the plan then terminate? Probably because the plan sponsor made it sufficient. Therefore, the contribution in the year of termination looks like the UC normal cost.

If you have not already, you might try searching both the Message Boards and BenefitsLink. Here is one item: http://www.benefitslink.com/reish/guidelin.../valuation.html

Looks to me like it is greater than 60%. Whenever you are close to 60%, always check very carefully, especially with respect to prior distributions.

Back to basics first. If the assets exceed the PV of the benefits, let's make sure we have "used up" the permissible benefits. Can the benefit definition in the plan be increased to use up the surplus? Merlin is correct: make sure the plan is amended to recognize the EGTRRA changes to the 415 limit.

Of course. But what does the plan say? BTW, since the second distribution is due 12/31/2003, it might be worth considering taking the first in 2002.

Try IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A 25, and 1.401(a)-11(d)(3) http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

MGB is correct. Insurance is usually able to reduce over-funding in a pension plan, approximately the same way it can reduce over-funding in your wallet.

Depends on plan provisions. As I recall, the "five-year rule" is an outgrowth of an IRS GCM (General Counsel's Memorandum) and focuses specifically on defined contribution plans. (Probably MGB will give us the exact details.) The net effect of that GCM was to imply that all participants who terminated in the five years preceding a plan termination with less than 100% vesting should be given 100% vesting upon plan termination. The reasoning was that, if the employee had been rehired anytime within 5 years following his severance of employment, then he would again begin to earn vesting service. In true bureacratic fashion, this ignored a couple of obvious problems: if the employee had died, rehire seems unlikely; if the company ceased to exist, rehire also seems unlikely. OK, I'll get down off my soapbox. The typical way of avoiding this issue now seems to be to include in the plan document two provisions: - automatic cashout of vested benefits below the limit ($5000), and - statement that any participant who severs employment non-vested will be deemed to have received (immediately) the entire amount of his "vested benefit". (So called "deemed cashout provision.) BTW, this probably also means that the plan should state that individual has a "deemed repayment" if rehired. If you have these provisions in your plan, then the only terminated employees who get 100% vesting upon plan termination would be those who severed employment during the plan year in which the plan termination occurs. This assumes there is not also a partial termination which could extend 100% to others.

The IRS instructions are still a good place to start. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5300.pdf