david rigby

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

I have the perfect solution: - employee does nothing, - employer makes contribution to the plan on behalf of the employee, - employee later severs employment and receives a distribution, - employee sends the money to me. In the meantime, employee names me as his beneficiary.

I think the issue is the same whether the QDRO applies to a Key or a non-Key. But on a practical level, if the T-H test is not even close to 60%, this might be a waste of time. Also, if the plan in question is a DB plan, then it is seems apprpriate to count the alternate payee's portion, even if distributed at any point in the past.

My understanding of FAS87/132 disclosure using the facts given by BDZ: Prepaid Benefit Cost = $80 (Accrued Benefit Liability) = (180) Intangible Asset = N/A Accumulated other comprehensive income = 180 Net amount recognized = $80 The "prepaid benefit cost" is (and has always been) the accumulated difference between actual contributions and NPPC. It is called "prepaid" because it is positive; an "accrued benefit cost" is negative.

Well, that fact just might change things. The minimum death benefit applies to any participant who is vested, even if not currently employed by the plan sponsor. The minimum death benefit provisions are found in IRC Sections 401(a)(11) and 417.

Sorry. REA refers to the "Retirement Equity Act of 1984". This enhanced the minimum surviving spouse death benefit that was first mandated by ERISA, effective in 1976. In a nutshell, the minimum death benefit is a life annuity to the surviving spouse payable as if the employee had elected a 50% Joint and Survivor benefit. If there is no surviving spouse, the survivor benefit can be zero. The minimum applies to any plan which pays benefits in the form of an annuity. A plan can offer a more generous death benefit, but not required. The primary exception to this minimum is government-sponsored plans. My explanation is intentionally oversimplified. If you need additional info, please post.

Perhaps the plan can be designed to exclude this employee by classification (which would not be "management employees who don't have any sense".) Would it be appropriate to wonder why Mr. 75-Year-Old is a management employee?

Irrevocable waiver of participation?

Sounds like an immediate amendment to freeze the plan would be useful. Suggestion: the amendment which does the freeze should specifically freeze benefit accrual service (whatever name the plan uses), the benefit amount, and participation. Vesting service cannot be frozen, so participants will continue to vest as they earn additional vesting service. The plan can remain frozen for as long as needed. The options available upon plan termination will be based on the terms of the plan. Unless the plan specifies otherwise, the termination could be provided by the purchase (by the plan) of one or more annuities. This may or may not be less expensive than providing individual lump sums.

Mike is correct. But to clarify a bit: assuming an ERISA-covered plan, the minimum REA death benefit is the only death benefit that is protected under 411(d)(6).

I'm not sure there is a requirement that all forms have to be actuarially equivalent to each other. Only that they have to be actuarially equivalent to the normal form, using the definition of AE in the plan.

If the document does not say, then the sponsor is put in the position of interpreting a phrase like "actuarial equivalent". That could be problematic, especially if the interpretation includes mortality pre-retirement but excludes it post-retirement. I come down in favor of being specific in the document.