david rigby

Just an observation, that small plans do not have different vesting schedules in qualified plans. More likely would be differences influenced by industry, rather than size (see, size doesn't matter). However, small plans are more likely to be top-heavy, which means that they are more likely to be affected by the top-heavy vesting schedule.

Problems big time! See Revenue Ruling 85-131. The 415 maximum is subject to phase-in. Try this to link to that revenue ruling: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglis...evrulmaster.htm

I'll be glad to send an invoice for services rendered. Just let me know where to mail it.

Well, I was really focusing on whether there is real jurisdiction. That is, if a church (without changing itself) wants to revoke its election, ERISA would prohibit this revocation, but is such prohibition really enforceable?

While we're on this topic, I have a corollary question. Under ERISA, a church can "elect" to have its pension plan covered, and this is supposed to be a one-time non-revocable election. Any examples of a church trying to "unelect"?

"Are these investments common?" I think the question answers itself. No they are not common, else you would not have to ask. I'm a bit disturbed by the statement "...there are many moral issues concerning viaticals but they are really are not relevant in this case." Moral issues are always relevant. They may not be a legal issue, but that does not eliminate their relevance. There is a different question as to whether in fact viatical policies are immoral. My reading on this subject does not draw a conclusion (but that is my opinion). However, my hunch is that many employees would not find this to be an attractive investment option. Just a guess.

Are the insured lives "related" in any way to the plan or the plan sponsor?

Points by Wessex are quite good. IMHO, the primary reason that plan sponsors and administrators have such low regard for the minimum distribution rules is the complexity, not the policy. The micro-management of this issue is just one of many.

Looks like the plan still exists. Yes, 5500s should have been filed. I wonder why the IRS has not sent a "where is your 5500" letter.

I believe that the answer is to look at the entire population of active participants. However, at the risk of dodging the original question, here are links to some earlier discussion on partial terminations. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7164

If the "organization" is a governmental one, there might be other issues involved.

Ditto. My reaction is that repayments must always come from after-tax money.

Here is a link to the 2000 IRS publication 575, Pension and Annuity Income (requires Adobe Acrobat). http://ftp.fedworld.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf Beginning on page 28 is the section entitled "Tax on Early Distributions". See comment on page 29: "Additional exceptions for qualified retirement plans. The tax does not apply to distributions that are: • From a qualified retirement plan (other than an IRA) after your separation from service in or after the year you reached age 55,..."

I'll hazard a guess. Perhaps this is in the reg. because the IRS only cares about your status and age on December 31. After all, this is an issue of taxation, not plan provisions.

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.