david rigby

I don't think there are any regs numbered 1.401(a)(11), either proposed or final. I find QJSA regs under 1.401(a)-11, issued 01/04/1977, amended 9/28/1977 and 8/19/1988. These regs are not in Q&A format. The 417 regs are also not in Q&A format. Both can be accessed here http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

I am a bit bothered (confused) by the statement above "Our actuarial census data is prepared by our actuary for the pension plan in his annual statement." I would never prepare a census. How could I since we don't have it. We always prepare a summary of the data as an adjunct to preparing our actuarial valuation report, but that is after the fact. Sometimes the auditor might use this, but not always. However, the employee census data is the responsibility of the plan sponsor.

Assuming I understand your facts: It seems that you are searching for an amendment that freezes benefit accrual retroactive to the first day of the plan year. Of course, IRC 411(d)(6) tells us that the amendment cannot reduce any accruals as of the later of the effective date or its actual adoption date. Since he had less than 1000 hours as of the adoption date, he did not accrue any benefits beyond the beginning of the year. Thus, your retroactive amendment would accomplish your goal. Then, it appears that the minimum funding requirement will be limited by the Full Funding Limitation, again accomplishing your goal of zero contribution, using a BOY valuation date.

I agree with Frank. He is correct about the change in funding method related to changing the valuation date. Note that Rev. Proc. 2000-40 (and all similar earlier revenue procedures) gives permission to change the valuation date to the first day of the plan year. To change to the last day of the plan year is a change that requires IRS approval. But a slightly different issue: for a one-participant plan, the issue is not how many hours he worked, but how much he can afford. If the participant still has cash to put in the plan, he still can do so. You might need to amend the plan as Frank has suggested, preferably before 12/31/2001, but you can also amend the plan to remove the hours requirement, thus permitting an accrual during the current year.

If you are focusing on the discount rate under SFAS No. 87, my experience is that it works in one of two ways: - The auditor (or some committee if a large firm) gives a range of acceptable discount rates, usually about every calendar quarter. For example, at 12/31/00, one firm told me a range of 7.0% to 7.5%. Then the plan sponsor, perhaps with consultation with the actuary, will pick a value in that range. - Some plan sponsors and auditors look to the actuary to make a recommendation. However, the responsibility for choosing the rate belongs to the plan sponsor. When in this situation, I ask the sponsor and auditor for their own opinions (guesses). But I also contribute whatever outside information I can find, such as the rates for high-quality corporate bonds. A consensus ususally results from this discussion, but I make it clear that the sponsor is doing the choosing. With regard to your question of published rates, there is usually only such information after the fact, in the form of surveys. Here is a recent survey of the top 50 corporations, as of December 31, 2000. http://www.arthurandersen.com/website.nsf/...S87FAS106Survey!OpenDocument

That proposal is pretty close to the ZEBRA (zero based reimbursement account). Don't think the IRS allows them because they violate the basic risk feature in reimbursement accounts.

I don't think that code citation is applicable to your fact set. Yes, a benefit can decrease as a result of lower compensation, usually over an extended time period. However, also look at IRC 411(a)(9), where the normal retirement benefit cannot be less than any early retirement benefit. With respect to your comment about worker's compensation, is the employee also receiving wages? Most defined benefit plans use a formula to define a benefit at an event date, typically retirement, death, disability, or other termination of employment. If the employee in question had a severance of employment, then that would be the event at which the plan would determine the benefit. In most cases, nothing that happened after that time would alter the amount of the benefit (although it might be forfeited upon death prior to attainment of retirement age).

Also look at IRC 219(g), especially subsection (5) which defines "active participant". I think a paraphrase of 219(g) is that this special limitation applies to any qualified plan. That would include participation in a multi-employer plan, whether or not this particular employer is making a contribution on behalf of this particular employee.

Interesting. Sorry, I don't have any more info that might help. Perhaps a question to the IRS might help, including the specific issue mentioned in your last post.

I think this thread should help. Be sure to read to the end. I'm not aware of different rules for employees who are participants in a multi-employer plan. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10562

This would appear to violate the regs under IRC 411(d)6). See IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1 (B)(1). http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

Just to be careful, is someone suggesting the GUST restatement date could be effective January 1, 2002? Does not make sense to me. Is it a problem?

Lump sum? Usually this is not calculated unless someone expects it to be paid. Was it paid? If so, then you have (probably) received the entire value of your benefit. (Note, there are a few unusual circumstances where you might have received a lump sum but a portion of your benefit remains, to be paid at retirement age.) If you have received a statement of a benefit payable at age 65, then that is probably all you will get. You should probably consider it your responsibility to keep the company informed about your current mailing address and to notify the company when you are ready to commence benefits. If you are eligible to commence benefits at some early retirement age, then it will be your job to notify them. (They would probably appreciate about a 3-4 month advance notice.)

Interesting. A corollary to that is IRC 417(a)(2)(B), where the spouse cannot be located. The statute here refers only to the plan representative, with no reference to notary. This makes much sense; you don't want to rely on someone else to make that determinaition, and the notary would not want to do so. However, in situations similar to the above, where the plan representative is "carved out" of the spouse signoff procedure, the practicality of a "missing spouse" gets very tricky. Any ideas on this?

QDROphile has pointed us to the correct IRC citation. Note that the last phrase of that paragraph reads "... and is witnessed by a plan representative of a notary public...". My read is that the plan sponsor does not have an opportunity to specify only one of these choices in the plan document. Is that correct?

I am looking for some historical information on the unrounded wage base. Anyone have a source of this data?

A QDRO cannot change the terms of the plan, so it cannot force the plan to add a valuation date. Thus, the response to the QDRO might give the prior valuation amount and a statement that the plan investments are valued only once per plan year. However, the Plan might already contain language that permits the Plan Administrator (not the TPA) to order an additional valuation date. I'll leave it to others to decide if, and under what circumstances, that is a good idea.

Didn't work here either.

Try this link to ask a question: http://www.benefitslink.com/qa_columns/adv...questions.shtml

You must really be a (car) nut to own two Mavericks!

In the U.S., anyone can sue anyone for any reason. But is it likely to succeed? Is it worth the cost of litigation? etc.

I am helping a client prepare a filing for waiver of minimum funding standard. I find in Rev. Proc. 2001-8 a user fee of $2,050. Any aware of any subsequent changes to the user fee schedule?

Depends. Is this plan subject to IRC 410?

Such threats can be useful, but flexibility is also useful. As the prior post notes, a lump sum was paid in error, but the plan is willing to permit repayments monthly. This can go a long way toward solving the problem without rancor. However, it is also prudent to identify what will happen if the repayment stream is interrupted by death. There is not a single correct answer, just advisable that all parties know.

Assuming this plan is subject to ERISA, the"anti-cutback" provisions of IRC 411(d)(6) would apply to those who are participants as of the effective date of the amendment (or actual adoption date, if later). That is, there is no requirement that any special "grandfathering" apply to employees who have not yet become participants.