david rigby

In determining the value of assets for GAS27 purposes, is there any (reasonably) definitive statement whether accrued contributions should be excluded? I have looked in the EA meeting outlines back to 1998. Found no discussion. Also, I cannot find any explict comment in GAS27 itself. Points to consider (that I don't wish to overlook): 1. In what year does the plan sponsor record the accrued contribution? 2. Does the auditor have an opinion? 3. In order to avoid "apples and oranges", the contribution(s) in the NPO "roll-forward" should be consistent with whether included in the assets. Any thoughts?

I am not aware of a specific limit. IMO, six is not too many IF you reasonably expect that all six could be competitive and be utilized. My experience is to use two, and to include a "catch-all" statement something like "if another insurer is chosen, you will be notified."

Blinky's comment about "cutback" and "accrued" is correct but might need some clarification here. Pension law states that no retirement benefit accrued (already earned) can be cutback, but that future benefits (that is, the amount that would be earned during future years) can be reduced, or even eliminated. For example, a plan can be frozen, not changing the amount of the accrued benefit but making all future accruals zero. In order to be of furthere assistance, it would help if you could describe in greater detail the nature of your benefit, both old and new. Also, what type of plan are we discussing: defined benefit? What are the early retirement provisions, if any?

Try http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/ (Their list is usually a little out of date.)

As said so many times before, even though you are trying to be creative with the rules, what does the plan say? BTW, I don't like your argument, but I'll leave that for the many minds better than mine. BTW2, I don't see a need to terminate the plan. Since the participant is over NRA, the plan could permit distribution. Am I missing something?

5500 forms and instructions http://www.dol.gov/pwba/pubs/forms/formmain.htm

American Benefits Council, although their chart may not be current. http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/

The text of IRC section 72(m)(10) is: "(10)Determination of investment in the contract in the case of qualified domestic relations orders Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, in the case of a distribution or payment made to an alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the participant pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (as defined in section 414(p)), the investment in the contract as of the date prescribed in such regulations shall be allocated on a pro rata basis between the present value of such distribution or payment and the present value of all other benefits payable with respect to the participant to which such order relates." Don't know if the IRS has issued any regs (proposed or otherwise) on this section.

Why do you need determination letter for termination? Can the other assets of the participants (doc and wife) be distributed? That is not the same as a plan termination.

That's a pretty good question. Just my non-lawyer opinion, but it might be hasty to assume a pro-rata split. For example, suppose all the after-tax money was contributed before the marriage, it might not be appropriate to do any split. If possible, the participant might want to consider having the QDRO modified to remove any ambiguity.

What was the song by the Mamas and Papas: "Monday, Monday, can't trust that day."

What do you mean "... came in at the beginning of the 2002 year" ? Was that a deduction from a paycheck dated in 2001?

The sponsor needs legal advice that can consolidate bankruptcy and qualified plan issues.

Form 5500 instructions can be found here. http://www.dol.gov/pwba/pubs/forms/formmain.htm

Yes, after-tax contributions are permissible. However, they are subject to some non-discrimination testing. You might need to submit additional specs to determine whether such contributions are likely to have a problem with the non-discrmination test. For example, if only highly-paid employees are likely to make such contribution, that can lead to a problem. Also, what level of employer matching contribution already exits? Some earlier discussion threads may be of value: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10776 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14631

Rather than the link above, let's try this similar, and longer, discussion thread. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15057

There is sufficient ambiguity. However, see especially comments by MGB in the first link above and his reference to "as determined by the Commissioner." Excellent point. Under that perspective, the Commissioner never determined $180K, so it cannot be an indexed amount. But you should be able to solve the confusion very easily by amending the plan to specify that amount (or any other amount not more than $200K). Might be cheap insurance to just do the amendment.

How about "form over substance"?

Does this help? http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2002-35.shtml

Generally, documents are not supposed to adopt IRC 401(a)(17) by reference. However, it certainly does happen. You might get some value from these threads. In both, note comments by MGB. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14601 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14370

Just my opinion, but if a formal bankruptcy has been filed (beware, there might be other terminology in some states that is similar), then reliance on a DOL Opinion letter likely will not guarantee payment of your fees. Seems unlikely that a bankruptcy judge is going to be limited by DOL opinion. Getting advice from legal counsel seems appropriate.

Generally, any court action which seeks to direct payment from the plan to someone other than the participant requires a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Note however, that plans sponsored by governmental units will usually be covered by different requirements.

You could get married.

Limit under IRC 415© might also be a problem, in combination with other contributions,

Except that the new regs (proposed I think) change the 15 days to 45 days. If the phrase "accrued benefit statement" refers to the disclosure in ERISA section 105(a), it is never required based on any action of the employer, only required when requested by the participant.