david rigby

I agree, it does not make sense to answer that question with a "yes". The question (and the instructions) refers to a resolution to terminate. A merger is not a termination. Also, both plans were required to file IRS Form 5310-A prior to merger, so the notification the the IRS has already been done.

I'm not so sure about that last comment. My recollection is that the adoption of the GATT lump sum basis was specifically exempt from IRC 411(d)(6) until the 2000 plan year (last day of the plan year which began in 1999, I think). If the adoption occurred after that, then the lump sum had to be the greater of the prior basis or the new basis for all distributions until the actual adoption date.

No expert I, but it seems the first question to ask is not whether Dealership B continues to exist, but does company B continue to exist after the sale? If it does not, then it seems likely that either A assumed sponsorship of the plan, or company B dissolved after the sale, which would probably terminate plan B. But... no matter the answer to that question, the sale/purchase documents should answer the question of who is the sponsor of plan B immediately following the transaction. If not, the attorneys who wrote such documents should get back to work.

Revenue Procedure 2001-17 might be a reference. Sorry, don't know if your specific question is there. http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2001-17.shtml

US / Canada Tax treaty http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/canada.pdf

Additional NC information. Today, May 14, is the first day of the legislative session. Action on anything will take a back seat to re-districting. On this website, http://www.ncleg.net/ it appears that several previously scheduled committees meetings, on diverse topics, have been canceled. One of those is the Revenue Laws Study Committee.

If it helps to have a second opinion, the comments by Mike are good.

Implicit in your question is that the plan defines the allocation of forfeitures as related to the amount of contribution. If so, then the plan sponsor probably should amend the plan to insert a method for allocating forfeitures. If not, then perhaps the plan has some other direction for your question.

In North Carolina, our state budget problems are pretty serious. In addition, the legislature is dealing with the issue of redistricing, especially sticky since the state supreme court thru out the first attempt. Difficult to know, but it seems very possible that the legislature will not deal with any EGTRRA conformity when it convenes later this month. In the meantime, this link summarizes the issue, as written by the state department of revenue http://www.dor.state.nc.us/practitioner/eg...ra_pension.html

Here it is: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13239

A previous thread had some related discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13266

Don't know anything about it. If you are interested, you can find a synopsis of FRS 17 and its predecessor SSAP 24 here. http://www.asb.org.uk/technical/standards....ndards%20(FRSs)

The values on both lines 1b(1) and 1b(2) should include accrued contributions as of your valuation date, as you state, that apply to the prior plan year. Note that the Schedule B is concerned only with minimum requirements under IRC 412, not deductible contributions under 404. If your 404 assets differ from your 412 assets, that is irrelevant to the Schedule B.

Please refer to IRS Reg. 1.411(a)-7(B), last sentence of subsection (1), immediately before the Examples in subsection (2). This sentence seems to state, for purposes of vesting and other requirements in IRC 411, that the latest NRA is the first day of the plan year which contains the fifth anniversary of participation, even if that is not the "fifth anniversary of participation." I don't know where this came from. It is not supported by a plain reading of IRC 411(a)(8), nor do I find anything in the Committee Reports from 1974 that would support this. The Gray Book does not address it. Can anyone help? In case you are wondering, this is the only other discussion thread I found that seems to be related. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13667

mbozek, Excuse my ignorance, but why do you state "...the shares should be sold"?

Per the instructions for Line 1b(1), "The current value is the same as the fair market value." BTW, the asset values on (1) and (2) are as of the valuation date entered in Line 1a. The "current value" on Line 2a is the market value as of the first day of the plan year.

If the EE is over NRA, then the plan can pay distribution without requirement of severance of employment, but the plan has to specify this.

This might be a starting point. And why not give the link to the spouse. http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/pubs/qdro.htm

... but not all payments are eligible for rollover.

Do you have some sort of death wish?

See IRS Proposed Reg. 1.412©(6)-1(g). I don't know how you are "out of balance" for several years, unless you are using the Aggregate Method (or some variation).

Try Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR01836:|TOM:/bss/d107query.html|

As an alternative, is it possible that, although Company A does not own B, one or more individuals who own A have ownership of B?

I agree. Also look at IRS Reg. 1.412©(3)-1(B)(1), where the IRS gives the complete "equation of balance" rather than the abbreviated version we so often use. When the UAAL goes negative, the IRS says to set it to zero (Revenue Ruling 81-213, section 5.01), and then create an amortization base that, effectively, rebalances your equation, usually equal to the credit balance.

Now a year later, I wonder if there are additional thoughts on this topic.