david rigby

Is the participant "missing", or is the checked uncashed for some other reason (perhaps even death)? If the participant is missing, and this is a DB plan, I suggest using the PBGC Missing Participant program. http://www.pbgc.gov/forms/XAMISS.htm If this is a DC plan (without annuity options), you might wish to use the newly proposed technique of issuing the benefit to an IRA.

Because Congress wanted the money out of the plan, where it is tax-deferred, and into the hands of the participant, where it is taxable. If "pro" is the opposite of "con", then what is the opposite of "progress"?

Not sure if we have all the relevant facts, but... assuming you are referring to a lump sum distribution upon plan termination, the plan will define the accrued benefit and the lump sum. The latter is probably "actuarial equivalent of the accrued benefit". That lump sum amount includes the after-tax contributions. Example, EE is age 40 at plan termination, with an accrued benefit of $100 per month, assumed to commence at normal retirement age of 65. The EE has contributed $200 in after-tax contributions. The lump sum at age 40 is (about) $2800. The EE would be eligible for a lump sum distribution at age 40 of $2800, $2600 of which is taxable (or eligible for rollover).

A spouse is a spouse is a spouse. "...not on good terms..." is not a good reason to avoid the proper signoff. Note that the relevant IRS reg. states that "legally separated" may be considered the same as unmarried. Such a separation involves a judge, not just two people deciding to call themselves "separated." However, it may be that the plan language must also include such phrasing. Not sure. See Q&A-27 of 1.401(a)-20,

Is this a qualified plan?

Speaking of semantics, the original question asked about "top heavy minimum funding". Let's be clear, that top heavy is about minimum benefits (and vesting), not about funding. BTW, for most top heavy plans, the ultimate benefit (at normal retirment date) exceeds the projected top heavy minimum benefit, thus having no impact on funding.

I am under the impression that there is no technical authority for terminating a 403(B) plan. Is that correct?

Paul's comments make good sense. Another point is to review the document to see whether it defines a lump sum calculation. (It might not be defined as the statutory minimum that Paul mentioned.)

Link to the DOL Voluntary Fiduciary Correction program. http://www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/public/pubs/vfcpfs.htm

I believe the (oversimplified) answer is that you cannot use the deduction to generate a net operating loss. Perhaps some expert can give us a course in S-corp 101.

Sounds like a ZEBRA to me (zero based reimbursement account). I think the IRS said no to these many years ago.

Seems to me that you could be less precise (at least with respect to the 60 days) and make the "caveat" more useful. How about something like, "This statement is subject to correction for errors and omissions. If you are aware of any needed corrections, please contact .........."

Thanks for the education on lawyer-client relations. "Perhaps a lawyer might be more skilled in the choice of words." This might be just one more good reason to have some legal advice in this situation.

Good point. Funding deficiencies carry two penalties (at least). The first is 10%, which is due immediately upon the occurrence of the deficiency. This penalty is statutory and the IRS has stated that they have no authority to waive it. The second is 100% and is due (about) 12 months later if the deficiency has not been corrected. The IRS does have some flexibility in whether this penalty can be waived or reduced. The plan sponsor will need lots of good documentation about why contributions were not made. As in so many situations, the first advice is to use a competent ERISA attorney.

You might see if this discussion helps. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8726

I think, pre-GATT, that unisex mortality was required [that is, under IRC 417(e)(3)], but that no specific mortality table was required. Of course, the specifics (under GATT or otherwise) merely provide a minimum. As an aside, I agree that this particular definition probably means UP84 +1, but stating in the document that the mortality basis is "PBGC male rates" is poor drafting. There is no excuse for not being precise in this area.

I agree with rcline46: doing a valuation on an unsigned document may be OK, properly caveated. But signing a Schedule B is a different matter. From your last post Richard, it appears that there is no attorney involved. You might wish to be sure you are not inadvertantly giving advice that the client interprets as legal advice. I suggest this client needs an ERISA attorney to review any problems with the adoption and documentation of the prior document.

Some earlier discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=4546 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8293

For federal withholding, the table starts at $200. The following link will take you to a table summarizing the state requirements. Click on State Withholding Information Sheet. But beware, it is out of date. http://www.cigna.com/professional/news/com...st/y2ksw_w.html

Tom is correct. There have been several discussion threads relating to how to fix such problems after the fact. Contributing the PS amount on a monthly or quarterly basis is much different from contributing and allocating, although the former can have its own set of potential problems. BTW, if it is discretionary, then it is often related to profits, which might also be difficult to predict.

Ah, the hazards of asking the same question on more than one board. There was a response. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=8785

Ditto, assuming that this is indeed being spent as after-tax income and they are not somehow (incorrectly?) included in a cafeteria plan.

The annuity contracts should contain all the provisions of the Plan, including (for example) early retirement rights, early retirement benefit factors, other factors for optional forms of benefit. The only "simplification" I can recall is under IRS reg. 1.411-4: if the plan has three or more J&S optional forms, then the plan can be amended to remove those "in the middle" as long as the lowest and highest percentages are retained. For example, if the plan offers a J&S using 50%, 67%, 75% and 100% continuation, then it could be amended to remove the 67% or the 75% or both, but not remove 50% or 100%. The plan should be amended first to do this before annuity purchases. If there are any other ways in which to simplify this, perhaps others will let us know.

Here is prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...=ST&f=19&t=5241 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...=ST&f=19&t=3735 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...=ST&f=19&t=3725

Someone has to make a reasonable attempt at estimating the EE contributions. This suggestion by RCK is a good one, especially if you have any starting point to base this on. Assuming you are the current actuary/record-keeper, then you should try out a method (or maybe two) for this estimate, and then get the plan sponsor to review and sign-off, preferably in writing.