david rigby

That is my understanding as well. Since there is no investment/expense risk being born by plan participants, this issue gets less attention, but I think the same rules would apply. Also of note is the "risk" born by the PBGC, so it should not be considered irrelevant.

It is my understanding that the insurance company cannot require the use of SSN as the ID number. Others may have more information on this subject. Identity theft (which by the way is really all about money) is a very serious problem. You might find some useful info here: http://www.idtheftcenter.org/

My hunch is that the employee will look to the plan sponsor to keep that data, assuming that the after-tax deductions were done properly in the first place. The prior recordkeeper may not be co-operative for a number of reeasons. For example, raising the question may have made them realize they made a mistake, or perhaps the prior TPA knew there was a problem earlier and did not follow-up. It is also possible that the employer did not report it properly to them. There may also be a TPA prior to that one. At any rate, the affected employees are going to be mad at somebody. Probably cannot assume the employees have records; not sure if a W-2 would help, but asking is better than ignoring the problem.

To be precise, the equation of balance mentioned here is really a subset of the correct equation: PVB = PVFNC + sum(outstanding balance of amortization bases) + (Assets - Credit Balance) See IRS Reg. 1.412©(3)-1(B)(1). http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html (Of course, this reg. pre-dates the existence of the Reconciliation Account.)

You are correct that the federal withholding would be zero for a lump sum distribution of $200 or less. (State tax laws vary.) However, the amount of the tax owed will depend on the individual's total income and tax circumstances in the year of distribution. I tend to agree with responses from MGB. However, whether or not the account should be distributed is governed by the terms of the plan. Most plans will require distributions of accounts less than $X (such as $5000). But this plan might have different provisions, and the plan should also define whether a certain time period must elapse before any disbursement is made.

No, the PBGC program is not open to a terminating DC plan. Seems to me that paying anything to an "individual bank account" is not the right idea. How about using an IRA? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=11246 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=3754

Recent article related to this issue: http://www.shrm.org/hrnews/articles/defaul...age=020702a.htm

Yes and no. The base for the plan amendment is the change in the unfunded accrued liability. If that is zero, so be it. But don't forget about the credit balance. If you have one, then you will have to establish a new base in this amount, which the IRS reg. calls a "loss", to be amoritzed over 5 years (for 412 purposes). To be precise, this base is established before you do the plan amendment, so the equation of balance is maintained.

BTW = By the Way

Sounds like a PT to me. BTW, 401(a)(26)?

Have you contacted that state revenue department to ask them for procedures?

Allowing a very high percentage deferral (say 50%) is a plan design that should be considered by any sponsor who has concern about passing the ADP test. The likely users of such high percentage are "second wage earners". If someone earning 20K wants to defer 10K, why not let them? It helps them and it helps the ADP test.

DOL Reg. that describes the SAR, including sample language: http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_29/Par...520.104b-10.htm

You should probably get your attorney to respond to this, but here is my non-lawyer understanding: The filing deadline is not 2/28/02. However, if you do file by that date, and the IRS finds some "deficiency" in your document, you will be permitted to correct it retroactively (no harm, no foul). If you submit it after 2/28/02, and there is a deficiency, the correction process may not be as "clean". (Sorry to be so vague, but that's what happens when you have to talk to lawyers all the time.) With regard to your specific question, my experience is that the postmark date is what counts.

Perhaps Newkirk. http://www.newkirk.com/home2.htm

The only thing I ever found on this was at http://www.wealthadvisors.bigstep.com (but it might not be there anymore). You also might try a search of these Message Boards.

Wait a minute. Did you really mean you worked for company A for 64 years? Perhaps that was 1993 to 1997?

Try the Table Manager at the Society of Actuaries site: http://www.soa.org/tablemgr/tablemgr.asp If you know actuarial mathematics, you can construct just about any table from this data. The tables listed here will almost always be rates of death. Any actuary can "build" whatever table is needed from that information. If you have any trouble determining which is the table you need, just post. For example, read the qxtables.txt file, and you will see that there is more than one 1983 table.

I agree with Kirk. A plain reading of ERISA sec. 514 would lead one to believe that the state law has no jurisdiction over what the plan sends out. However, it still might be a good idea, just not enforceable under state law.

"Interim valuation"? I wonder what that is, and if it is permitted by the plan. I agree with Mike Preston's comment about "thin ice."

Different issues. The "profit-sharing" and "401(k)" terms refer to how (and why) money gets into the plan. Whether the participants have ability to direct the investments is related to what happens to the money after it gets into the plan.

I'm looking for some guidance on whether there are any restrictions on buying stocks on margin, - within a profit-sharing plan? - within a 401(k) plan? - within an IRA? Specific reasoning and/or cites would be appreciated. Thanks.

Link to Index of Q&As as mentioned by KJohnson. http://www.benefitslink.com/qa_columns/pla...cts/index.shtml

Not to be too picky, RCK has the correct Q&A, but it is in 1.401(a)-20. Note (because I have seen this mistake) that it is the "plan representative" making this determination. Not appropriate to have the "notary" involved.

I wonder how the plan assets performed in the same time period.