david rigby

Many plan definitions of comp do not include any reference to "services performed". It could refer to "compensation actually paid to the employee by the employer". This type of reference tends to steer one in the direction of the W-2. However, the original post stated "terminates service". That may or may not mean "terminates employment". Need more information on particular facts and circumstances. There are probably thousands of employers who include the owner's spouse on the payroll, perhaps in some trivial amount. These spouses may never perform services that are related to the business. They still get a W-2. Final question about 70-1/2. This depends on two things: is the employee an HCE? if so, yes the payments must commence under 70-1/2 rules; if not, what does the plan say about NHCEs at 70-1/2?

PWBA / DOL regs. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx...v9_01.html#2509

Ideally, the final Schedule B will have "Final" added somewhere easily seen. However, in the 2001 instructions to the Schedule B, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5500sb.pdf, under "Who Must File" is the following footnoote: "For terminating plans, Rev. Rul. 79-237, 1979-2 C.B. 190, provides that minimum funding standards apply until the end of the plan year that includes the termination date. Accordingly, the Schedule B is not required to be filed for any later plan year. However, if a termination fails to occur - whether because assets remain in the plan's related trust (see Rev. Rul. 89-87, 1989-2 C.B. 81) or for any other reason (e.g., the PBGC issues a notice of noncompliance pursuant to 29 CFR section 4041.31 for a standard termination) - there is no termination date, and therefore, minimum funding standards continue to apply and a Schedule B continues to be required."

I agree with Belgarath RE his comment about involuntary termination. To be considered a partial termination, the termination of participation in the plan must be involuntary, either by plan amendment or other employer-initiated action (such as, firing, layoff, or plant closing). However, the IRS presumes all terminations are involuntary unless the employer shows otherwise. In the original post, there is the phrase "have been terminated". Don't know what that means, but it certainly can convey an involuntary termination.

Every discussion of a partial termination should include a review of "facts and circumstances." Some prior discussions here might be useful, such as http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14055 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10187 Based on the limits facts presented, my guess is that the plan sponsor should probably be willing to treat this as a partial termination. However, that will require close examination of your term "voluntarily". In general, the result of a partial termination is to award 100% vesting to "affected participants." This usually does not have any bearing on the plan's operation in the next plan year, except that it may trigger additional payouts, hence affect cash flow.

Correct. Or in actuarial terminology, use N's, not a's.

Looks pretty good. But MGB, how can we old folks (OK, were not old, just "older") explain that to the younger crowd that did not learn commutation functions? Hurray for Jordan!

This might help. http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2002-42.shtml

OK this does not address your question, but my thought is that I would not pursue this as a client. The term "black hole" comes to mind.

The Cigna summary of state withholding requirements linked above is from 2001. The summary was updated in early 2002 and posted in this message: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14109

Hmmmm. If the "assets were liquidated", that implies some prior action, probably either formal declaration by the plan sponsor (such as resolution by the board of directors) or an event that caused all participants to have a distributable event, such as severance of employment. If the former, then you do have a plan termination. If the latter, then you have a "matured" plan, one that has distributed all benefits due, and properly filed a final 5500.

At the risk of irrelevance, was the plan terminated or was it "terminated"?

This might be the thread you were seeking: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15011

Most GUST restatement dates I have seen are as of the first day of the plan year beginning in 2001. I have also seen dates as early as the first day of the plan year beginning in 1997.

Not sure I understand your question. Is it possible that you have some typos in your posted facts? We have not reached 11/30/2002, so no one knows what that balance will be. How do you know there are losses at 11/30/2002? Probably, the timing of any distribution is based on the terms of the plan. In a DC plan, seems pretty unlikely that the plan will "make up for the losses".

Right. If you want to give them vesting, the best way to do so is amend your plan.

The instructions to Form 5330 do not appear to have any exception for small amounts (caution, I scanned the instructions quickly). http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5330.pdf The poriton of the instructions that deals with IRC 4975 contains a cross-reference to an IRS regulation under section 4941, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...=2001&TYPE=TEXT A quick scan of this reg does not reveal any small amount exception either. It is my guess that, especially with regard to PT issues, the IRS wants to know of their existence as much as it wants the excise tax. The safe course of action is probably to file it.

Or try Thomas (P.L. 107-16) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR01836:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html|

Hold on here. In your first post, you state "a plan". In your most recent post, you state "each plan". Is it a single plan, or many? The answer to that question is not affected by how the divisions have filed 5500s in the past. It must be answered before concern for your original question. If a single plan, then file only one. If multiple plans, the addition of a new division will either create a new plan (hence a new effective date) or it will be included in one of the existing plans (in which case, the new division does not file anything).

Perhaps I'm missing something, but from the facts stated by LVanSteeter, there is only one plan. If that is the case, then there should be only one 5500. However, also stated is that assets are "kept separate". So maybe there is more than one plan. Define the basics first. The ball is back to you. Maverick has a different scenario that implies different divisions have different plans; thus, multiple 5500s.

Oh please tell me these were attorneys!

A better first question is how many 5500 filings there should be. - On what basis is the current process of filing multiple forms? - What kind of plan is this? - What is the actual relationship of the "divisions", to each other? to any other entity (such as a corporation)? - Any collective bargaining agreements involved?

This link still works. Is it of any value to you? http://www.moodys.com/moodys/cust/displayS...501300000001844

Update on NC: There is proposed legislation to bring the NC tax code in conformity with the US tax code. However, I was informed today by one of the sponsors that passage of that bill does not appear likely.

Form 5308 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5308.pdf