david rigby

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.

Read the SPD is good advice. More likely than "wait to 65" is a plan provision that defines how often payments are made. For example, it could be daily, monthly, quarterly, annually.

I found nothing on this point in Announcement 96-18 or Rev. Rul. 96-20 or Rev. Rul. 96-21. The following is Q&A 5 from the 1996 Gray Book. As always, the response is unofficial IRS guidance. Are the additional funding charges to the funding standard account due to the deficit reduction contribution prorated for a short plan year? How is the target percentage affected under the transition rule that limits the additional funding requirement to the amount needed to reach such target percentage? RESPONSE It would be consistent with prior guidance to prorate the additional funding charge determined on an annual basis.

Probably not. GATT establishes a minimum. It sounds like your plan is using that as a minimum. As long as the alternative method is well-defined, available on a non-discriminatory basis, and is a unisex-type of calculation, it should be OK.

You might want to check with the plan document as to whether it authorizes forfeitures, without regard to what the Trustee authorizes.

Assuming that NRD is age 65, normal form is Life Annuity, and payment is made 4/1/2001, I get a lump sum factor of 6.39988 (is that enough decimals?). Multiply by the monthly life annuity (assuming no early retirement reduction factors apply), and also multiply by 12.

Also might be a ggod idea to read the Summary Plan Description (SPD). Should be some generic language in that similar to comments from Consultant above.

See http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10294

Yes. The determination of a lump sum equivalent is, at its most basic, a matter of how the Plan defines it. Most plans will define "actuarial equivalent" or some similar term. If that defintion includes reference to a mortality table, then it should be used. Should be NO discretion in this. See my generic description here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10579

Sure. This is two separate transactions. First, the retiree is electing the life annuity. Second, the retiree is spending $X per month to buy life insurance. Is it a good idea? Much different question, and one that cannot be answered here. Many factors, such as health of retiree, health of spouse, other financial issues.

I think that the terms of the plan would govern this, but it seems likely that the person must be an employee as of the potential vesting date. If the person has no hours, that might imply not an employee, but what controls the employer-employee relationship will usually be defined outside the plan.

I'm no expert, but it sounds like a failure of the plan administrator, which does not necessarily mean the plan is in violation of anything. Hard to argue with the approach of doing an 1099 now, send to the IRS, possibly with letter of explanation, and having the employee refile taxes. It probably makes sense that the additional tax is the employee's, but the employer could pay for any fee necessary to refile, and any possible penalty.