david rigby

That is (sort of) the correct IRC cite. Notice that 412(a)(7)(A) has an introductory paragraph that ends with "...the greater of-". Thus, the deductible limit for that fiscal year (not plan year) is the greater of 25% of comp, or the amount required (that is, the IRC 412 minimum required contribution) for the DB plan(s). If the DB plan(s) require contribution of 30% of comp, then that should be the amount contributed and deducted, but then the contribution to the DC plan(s) will not be deductible, even if it is required to be made under the terms of the Plan. Does that address your concern?

I'm confused. Are you asking about the benefit limitations of IRC 415 or the deduction limitations of IRC 404?

See this (PDF - 72 pages). Also see http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/pubs/401kfe~1.htm and http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/pubs/401kt799.htm and http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/pubs/401kt799.htm

It strikes me that the best insurance you can get is to discuss your options with a competent attorney. I suggest using one who has more than a little experience with ERISA and employee benefit issues. You definitely want to do this before calling the DOL!

BTW, the report can be found at this site. (PDF, about 110 pages.) http://www.soa.org/research/rp2000.html

I think there is no automatic vesting here. See IRC 411(d)(3) and Reg. 1.411(d)-2.

Seems unlikely. An IRA is supposed to accept amounts from a tax-qualified plan. That seems to be directed at U.S. taxes.

It seems unlikely that any plan sponsor would want to "take over" these assets, when there is a viable mechanism for doing otherwise. I have used the PBGC Missing Participant program twice. Although there is a bit more paperwork, I appreciate having it available. Nice to be able to get rid of these benefits without having to worry about whether you did the right thing. So much cleaner. In my opinion, if you have "non-responding participants", it is reasonable to treat them as "missing". To do otherwise would force the plan sponsor to "keep open" the entire process. However, you might want to make sure the non-responders have been informed of the consequences.

Blinky is right. It the plan is overfunded, then one of 2 things will happen to the excess: 1. The IRS gets most of it, or 2. The excess can be allocated to plan participants. If the 415 limits have prevented the "top staff" from getting more benefit, then the change in the law should help that.

Follow the money!

Grandfather, no. Greater of, yes. For all lump sums paid between the first day of the plan year beginning in 2000 and the date of adoption, the lump sum must be the greater of the GATT amount and the basis contained in the plan. As soon as the amendment is adopted, this requriement goes away.

Neither. The SOA taskforce did an exceptional job in looking at basic mortality data and has submitted this table to the actuarial profession and to the IRS with recommendation that it be considered as a replacement for the 1983 GAM table. That table is currently used for calculations under IRC 412(l) current liability and for determining PBGC variable premium liability. The RP-2000 table is really multiple tables, with strong discussion and documentation illustrating the mortality variations by gender and by "collar" Although I have a personal concern over how the committee defined collar, it is clear that there is more than trivial differences between white collar and blue collar. The ball is in the IRS's court. They could do nothing, adopt as recommended, adopt with some modification, adopt with some phase-in, etc. My guess is that they will not adopt anything right away, but will adopt with a phase-in. Because there is an entrenched mindset at all government levels that "one size fits all", I doubt they will take the advice of the taskforce in allowing different mortality tables by collar.

You might try searching the websites of news organizations, computer manufacturers, or computer magazine publishers. I think AT&T and Delta AirLines have offered some computer benefits.

If there is a formal bankruptcy filing, it does not seem like there would be any whistle-blowing.

Forgive my ignorance, but why can't you call the DOL?

Any qualified plan (or aggregation group) that is top-heavy will have two primary characteristics that it must observe: 1. The benefit (PVAB for defined benefit plans) or current contribution (for DC plans) must be at least the appropriate T-H minimum. 2. The plan/group must use a vesting schedule that is at least as generous as the T-H schedule (20% after 2 years, graded to 100% at 6 years). By its definition, vesting applies to the Employer provided benefit.

NC has a grandfathered one.

1. Is it possible the involuntary threshhold has also changed? (3500 to 5000?) If so, would this help? 2. If no help from (1) above, you probably have to consider this an administrative issue. The first thing to consider is whether the increase is even available as a lump sum under the terms of the plan. To err on the side of caution, you should probably look at the total amount. If you decide it is available, then the J&S signoff is the next issue. Again, to err on the side of caution, you could assume the signoff is required if the total is more than the involuntary limit (presumably 5000). Ex. First distribution was 4600, increase is 500, then the spouse signoff would be required in order to pay the 500 in a lump sum.

I agree that 83 is the proper entry for the Schedule B. Who knows what would "guarantee an audit"? More likely is that someone at the IRS would ask a question, of the EA probably, which could be answered just as you have stated. P.S. Does the plan vest upon death? P.P.S. Does this plan sponsor want to adopt me?

I cannot address legal issues. Best to contact an ERISA attorney for that. However, there might already be some information on this website. First idea is to look at all Q&A's in this particular message board. Another source of information might be to search the entire website. For example, http://www.benefitslink.com/links/20000321...21-004773.shtml Might be some vendors to talk to also, such as http://www.btabta.com. (I have no experience with this vendor.) In general, software vendors might be able to provide some info: http://www.benefitslink.com/software.shtml

I'm not sure if I understand what carsca is asking, but I think the answer is no. My CCH book shows no IRS regs. (or proposed regs.) under IRC 414(a). Not sure if it might be covered in some other reg.

.... but don't you still need a "distributable event"?

Although I still don't know what LIBOR is, you may be able to find some quotes here: http://www.futuresource.com/

REA was passed in August 1984. However, J&S requirements have existed for qualifed DB plans since 1976. The comments from actuarysmith are very good.

Sounds like a bunch of problems, most of which you can't fix. Perhaps a job search is the best approach.