david rigby

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)?

There are a number of earlier discussion threads that might help. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7890 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=9005 You might also do a search on the Message Boards using "buy-back" or "repayment" as a search criteria.

What is really neat about this whole act is that it "sunsets" at 2010. Don't count on it. This is a very public statement by Congress to encourage lobbying in future years, so that later legislation can "correct" or "fine-tune" any problems in current law.

This is a pretty subtle point. See Q&A T-24. BTW, don't forget Q&A T-28. An earlier discussion might be useful: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7605

Amen. My experience is that govt. employers are glad to "lean on" ERISA requirements as guidance for employee communications. The SPD is a good example; however, don't include the "ERISA rights" section since it does not apply.

Or here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/

I have no idea, but as a taxpayer, I would strongly object to this giveaway, with no return to the employer/taxbase.

Well, I'm sorta "on the fence" here. I don't think you should apply different standards to DB and DC plans, but the DC plan definition of when forfeiture occurs might be relevant. I looked at the 1.416 T-H regs, especially Q&A T-24, T-28 and T-30. The language there talks about "the account balance". The only adjustments are for accrued contributions (in certain cases) or for "distributions". I doubt a forfeiture would be considered a distribution. My conclusion is that, unless the plan has some definitions to the contrary, I would use the account balance after applying the graded vesting. But read all associated definitions carefully. I'll muddy this up a bit more with another point found in T-24, first sentence: "...the account balance as of the most recent valuation date occurring within a 12-month period ending on the determination date..." It might be possible that the employee is active on that valuation date (hence no forfeiture) but is terminated (with partial vesting) on the determination date. Any other opinions?