david rigby

Not sure about the timing, but 1988 sounds familiar. I think earlier discussions on this topic might have identifed such reference. (Proposed IRS regs under section 411?) Try this. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10139

I think we need a bit more info to help you. Date of birth? Normal form of benefit payment (such as life annuity)?

I think I'm in agreement that the employees in question should not be participants, but I'm not so sure about the documentation. Except for a few minor wording changes, the instructions for the 2001 W2 are very similar to that for the 2000 W2 (at least with respect to this check box). There is a reference to IRS Notice 98-49. http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/notice98-49.shtml Read Q&A C3. It cross-references Notice 87-14. Sorry, I could not find a copy; I'll continue to look. In addition, there is a reference in the instructions to IRS Publication 590. http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf Note that this publication is focused on IRAs, and includes comments on who can make a deductible contribution to an IRA. Relevant comments begin at the bottom of page 8. From page 9: "If you are eligible to participate in your employer's defined benefit plan for the plan year that ends within your tax year, you are covered by the plan. This rule applies even if you: • Declined to participate in the plan, • Did not make a required contribution, or • Did not perform the minimum service required to accrue a benefit for the year." I do not know how to justify that last bullet, except that perhaps it means you are already a participant but worked less than the required hours (probably 1000) this year. I am also unsure about the comment above "the plan year that ends within your tax year". For example, if I am a participant on 10/1/99 (beginning of plan year) and terminate employment on 12/31/99, I am a participant in the "plan year that ends within my 2000 tax year", but I never participated during my 2000 tax year. Have I missed something?

I think it is very common. BTW, an SPD must be reissued every 5 years if there are significant changes, or every 10 years even if there are no changes.

Might be. If this is a doctor practice and the doc becomes a 5% owner, then he/she becomes an HCE. Another method might be to have a one year waiting period for participation, but then you probably don't want to do that. Or how about participate on the January 1 following 6 months of service?

Clarification: "A distribution upon attaining retirement age is not considered an in-service withdrawal and is therefore permissible in an MPPP. " That should be Normal retirement age, as defined in the plan.

If you pay out at a different time, do you know how much to pay? Would it violate the terms of the plan? Would the participant receive a distribution prior to separation of employment? Is there potential discrimination in favor of HCEs?

You might also be able to use that argument if the total is less than the involuntary distribution limit in the Plan. Even if the total exceeds that limit, you might also be able to do the distribution without new form(s) if the secondary amount is trivial- say $10. But I don't know where you draw the line. No matter what the other issues, if there is a QDRO involved, be careful. When in doubt, err on the side of caution.

No experience with it, but try: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...=ST&f=22&t=8211

So this is how you spell trouble!! Just a guess but I would say the plan is in deep doodoo, and may have to pay the spouse anyway. The Plan needs legal advice.

Well, a little clarification. All qualified plans are aggregated for purposes of determining top-heavy status if the plans contain common Key Employees. This is called a Required Aggregation Group. All plans within the group are top-heavy or not top-heavy. That is, if they are aggregated, there is only one test, and (this is important) the top-heavy ratio of each plan is irrelevant. As stated above, the top-heavy minimum benefit can be provided by any one of the plans in the group, or in some combination. Equally important, all plans in the group must provide T-H vesting even if the minimum benefit is provided in a different plan.

A few prior discussions: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=9553 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8500 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7064 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8581

Recent discussion on this topic: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=22&t=10324

Please more information. Restate your inquiry with a bit more background and details.

Might also be worth pointing out that the plan administrator is charged with upholding the terms of the plan. Most plans authorize the PA (or committee) to seek its own legal advice when needed.

This may not be on point with your question, but I reviewed the Q&As for SFAS No. 87. Q.11 reads as follows: If an employer has a non-qualified pension plan (for tax purposes) that is funded with life insurance policies owned by the employer, should the cash surrender value of those policies be considered plan assets for purposes of applying Statement 87? A.11. No. If the employer is the owner or beneficiary, the life insurance policies do not qualify as plan assets and the accounting for those policies should be in accordance with FASB Technical Bulletin 85-4, Accounting for Purchases of Life Insurance.

Hmmm. Not sure, but I think that the general rule is that withholding from periodic pension payments is based on the same table as for wages, whatever those tables might be.

Might be some estimate on the DOL website. http://www.dol.gov

But keep a record of the change, and make sure the plan sponsor, attorney, auditor, TPA, actuary, etc. all receive a copy.

Probably depends on the plan terms. However, the general rule is that the subsidy should be available to the participant in the annuity option he receives, and does not have to be included in the lump sum option he receives. But be aware that precedent is likely very important. That is, if the plan has offered a lump sum to past early retirees, what subsidy, if any, was included in that lump sum?

Don't forget about partial termination and the resulting 100% vesting.

OK. Perhaps my problem is that I don't recognize all the extensions listed. For example, I don't know .rpt or .png. Thus, I don't have access to all the necessary applications.

I also appreciate the ability to use attachments. However, it is very annoying to receive attachmwnts where the sender did not describe what kind of file it is, or what application is used to view it. Is there a way to address that?

I'd say it sounds like a drafting problem. Your description implies that the surviving alternate payee (I presume this is the ex-spouse) is to get a death benefit, but not before the participant would have reached (early?) retirement age. That is, the DRO may not spell that out, but it sounds like that is the intent. Probably an issue that should be better addressed within the language of the DRO. BTW, you did not say QDRO. Is it qualified?

Keith, which EA meeting(s) and which session(s)?