david rigby

Don't know if it is up to date, but here is a page from CIGNA: http://www.cigna.com/professional/pdf/CPA_iidw0201.PDF This link can take you to each state's revenue department: http://www.sisterstates.com/

Let's be careful about the original post. It implied that disqualification means all asset would be distributed. Maybe. Depends on the terms of the plan. Another caution is timing. The question might be refering to a new plan. Most new plans contain language that states its existence is contingent upon attaining initial qualified status. If such qualification is denied (rather than a disqualification), then the plan provisions will probably dictate what to do, such as "reverse" all payments made to the trust.

Top heavy regs. 1.416 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Not sure from the original post if someone is defining officer by reference to the compensation. In Q&A T-12, it points out that you consider officers if the comp exceeds a certain limit. But also see Q&A T-13, which points out that an officer is not determined by title.

Thanks MGB for the unrounded amounts. Of course, all of those amounts will round to $11,000, which is the point.

Having the ER hold onto the certificate sounds like a bad idea. Has ER sent certified/registered letter to EE requesting contact? Try some friendly leverage.

...but don't forget to also save some for short term needs. Outside the IRA.

I may not be eloquent, but I'll defend the SOA, an organization whose purpose is education not lobbying. I am proud of my SOA membership, and proudly advocate a strong educational program for all actuaries, no matter what specialty they may choose. Some, but not all actuaries (yes even in the pension arena), use their strong background in mathematics and statistics on a regular basis. Just because some actuaries don't, or don't want to, does not advocate in favor of lowering the educational standards for the profession. Actuaries must maintain high standards in this area precisely because the number of our members is so low (at least as compared to other professions). Due to much of this strong background, many of us believe that we are uniquely qualified for certain types of tasks and assignments. I don't want to lose that.

I look forward to reading the article, when you post a link. Most readers of these Boards consider the Boards to be a very important information sharing vehicle. And we are glad to provide help. All we ask is balanced reporting and accurate quoting. Not stated, but if you desire additional input from (or about) certain readers, click on "profile" to send an email.

Jon, if available, can you provide links to these opinion letters? Thanks.

Disagree. I think the language of ERISA section 204(h) is plain, and its applicability to a money purchase plan is also plain. I don't see any difference whether MP plan is "converted" or "merged". I see no relevance about HCE's either. However, I'm curious about your phrase "...all contribute the maximum to the MP...". What does this mean?

There has NEVER been an actuarial exam that adequately covers the material on the syllabus. (This is not a bad thing, just a fact.) The only way to do so would be to increase both the number of questions and the exam time.

Also, note that many of the public statements made by the plaintiff's attorney use the flammatory word "kickback". Not really accurate, but it is a word that gather attention and emotion.

Browse around. Try some search engines. Try newpapers where a story might appear. http://www.investmentnews.com/ http://www.pionline.com/ http://www.ctnow.com/

I was given an article from the January 7, 2002 issue of Investment News. Suit has been filed in federal court in Hartford Conn.

Link to Rev. Proc. 2001-17 http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2001-17.shtml

Also depends on the significance of the amendments themselves.

... and it would be really helpful if the plan itself addressed this.

To the best of my knowledge, that's correct. Caution: I'm an actuary, not an attorney.

Possibly not relevant to your question, but an issue about the CBU. IRC 410( B)(1)(3) permits CBU employees to be excluded from coverage testing "...if there is evidence that retirement benefits were the subject to good faith bargaining..." My understanding of this is: If there was no bargaining related to retirement benefits (in general), and possibly related to this plan (specifically), then such unit of employees cannot be excluded from coverage testing. I would love have some feedback about whether my synopsis is valid. Here is a link to the IRS regs. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html IRS Reg. 1.410(B)-1( c)1): "(1) Bargaining unit. Under section 410( B)(2)(A) and this paragraph, there may be excluded from consideration employees not included in the plan who are included in a unit of employees covered by an agreement which the Secretary of Labor finds to be a collective bargaining agreement between employee representatives and one or more employers, if the Internal Revenue Service finds that retirement benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers. For purposes of determining whether such bargaining occurred, it is not material that such employees are not covered by another plan or that the plan was not considered in such bargaining." Fascinating: the DOL defines a CBA, but the IRS defines "good faith bargaining."

The "anit-cutback" rule covers benefits earned as of the effective date of the change, not what could be earned if the rule had not changed. If I understand your facts correctly, then the plan could be amended to revise the definition of compensation, retaining a minimum of the accrued benefit. (Alternatively, you could revise other aspects of the rate of benefit accrual.)

The primary goal of a business is to make a profit. That means a constant attention to controlling and/or reducing expenses. A likely result of any mandated expenses is that more jobs will move to other countries. It has already devastated several industries, such as textiles.

Not sure if any readers will disagree with me, but I have added to the Model Notice in the past. I make two changes: 1. Change the paragraph heading from "Mandatory Withholding" to Mandatory Federal Tax Withholding." (page 11 on the above link) 2. Add the following paragraph immediately following: "Mandatory State Tax Withholding. If any portion of your payment can be rolled over under Part I above and you do not elect to make a DIRECT ROLLOVER, many states have a mandatory withholding requirement. For example, North Carolina and Virginia require a withholding of 4% under these circumstances. If your payment is made in the form of a lump sum, then the trustee will withhold 20% for the federal requirement and whatever state withholding requirement applies for your state of residence." (I include the references to NC and VA because that covers most of our clients.)

Hmmm. Perhaps Bill has some strong opinions about this. He has certainly pointed to an important aspect, maybe even more important than any arbitrary limitation on investments: disclosure. In particular, disclosure of fees. There is a definite need in that area. Personally, I would hope for some non-governmental policing, but we'll see.

A little help please. Where can we read this?

This discussion began with reference to California, but many issues probably apply in several states. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12958