david rigby

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.

No exception in Internal Revenue Code section 411 for "collectively bargained."

... and there is also the possible limitation that the Plan may exclude years prior to age 18 for determination of vesting service. In general, the 1000-hour rule is common. However, the plan could use a lower limit, but not a higher one. Although very unlikely, it is possible for the plan to define fractional years of vesting service, for example, one-half year for 750 hours, as long as the 1000-hour rule is also maintained. The admonition to review the terms of the plan document is still valid.

Not sure if this helps, but Carol Calhoun has a comparison chart on her webiste. Focuses on 401(k), 403(B), and 457 plans. http://benefitsattorney.com/choice.html

I would agree with MWeddell's comment. However, at the 2002 Enrolled Actuaries Meeting, a similar issue was put to the IRS in the Q&A session. Specifically, the question was, if the plan does not adopt the higher compensation limit permitted by EGTRRA (that is, 200K), what is the 2002 limit? Dick Wickersham replied "$170,000". Almost everyone there disagreed with him, saying "$180,000."

Perhaps this might help. From the PWBA website, Frequently Asked Questions, http://askpwba.dol.gov/faq-compliance-pension.html "Q. Is there telephone assistance available for Form 5500 and Form 5500-EZ filers? A. PWBA has made available a toll-free telephone number, 866.463.3278 to provide a variety of assistance to plan filers. This toll-free service is available Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm EST and may be utilized by individuals who need assistance: in responding to correspondence received from PWBA about EFAST processing of their Form 5500 or 5500-EZ filing; with general questions about EFAST; with questions and/or need help completing the Form 5500 or Form 5500-EZ. Callers may also utilize PWBA’s toll-free number to access the Internal Revenue Service and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation."

Is it one plan? If so, then one 5500.

ERISA section 407, which you can access here: http://www.benefitslink.com/erisa/crossref...nce_short.shtml Note that the language refers to "employer security" (not "stock") and also includes employer real estate. Subsection (a)(2) imposes the 10% limit, while subsection (B)(1) provides the exception for individual account plans. Not sure if there is a requirement to include this 10% limit in the plan's written documents. Seems unnecessary for the plan document itself, but might be relevant for the plan's trust document.

I'm not a lawyer, but it is unlikely that "escheat" and "PBGC" belong in the same sentence. If a current of former employee has questions about how to search for a "lost pension", the PBGC has this booklet, in English or Spanish: http://www.pbgc.gov/publications/lostpendl.htm This is the PBGC Missing Participant program: http://www.pbgc.gov/plan_admin/xamiss.htm open only to DB plans. There is a proposed IRS reg which permits DC plans to set up IRA's for participants who cannot be located. Not sure if it is a good idea though.

http://www.1112.net/lastpage.html

If the individuals are in Mexico, the IRS and SSA are going to have the same problem: no data reporting.

Not sure I know what you are asking. But don't ever expect the PBGC to "bail you out." I agree that a PBGC takeover will likely occur when the plan sponsor is no longer viable.

mbozek is right on point. In addition, Company A might be concerned about some defect in Plan B that is unknown. In that case, A is merely acting prudently until that question can be resolved.

In our office, we have some governmental plan sponsors (mostly county-owned hospitals) that want to have a plan that closely resembles an ERISA plan, so many use GATT lump sum provisions. However, I also had one such plan terminate a few years ago, after passage of GATT but before such provisions were adopted. The plan was underfunded, and we suggested that the adoption of GATT lump sum provisions would help alleviate that problem. The county attorney advised that adoption of such provision (at any time) would probably violate state law because the net effect was a "cutback" in the value of one of the optional forms of payment, even though that optional form was available only upon plan termination. This advice was confirmed by outside counsel.

See Advisory Opinion 2001-01A and Hypothetical Examples here: http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/program...01/opnion01.htm