david rigby

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 But beware, it is out of date.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.

No disagreement with other posts, but I think there might be other issues. The correct reference is Rev. Rul 77-2. Section 2.02 discusses this issue, but note that the charges and credits are supposed to reflect the portion of the year that the amendment is effective. That might mean, especially in an individual funding method, that the normal cost is determined with and without the plan change, and then prorated. Also, section 3 states that if the plan amendment has not been adopted by the valuation date, then the actuary may defer recognition until the next valuation date.

The participant might have some information in the form of W-2's or paystubs. OK, it's not very likely, but no harm in asking.

We'll, right now I can address only the last question. "...is it proper to change the val date?" Unless you are changing the val date TO the first day of the plan year, you need "permission" from the IRS. This is often not worth the bother. See Rev. Proc. 95-10 Section 3.13

"Projecting TH is an assumption. Do as you please." I would be careful with this. Assumptions should be reasonable, not as you please. However, in most situations, the top-heavy status won't change, at least not much in any one year. Usually, the most reasonable assumption is that the plan will remain top-heavy (or not top-heavy) if that is its current status.

Interesting. Harry, you mention PLRs. Any other cites, since PLRS cannot be considered applicable to other situations?

Non-qualified supplemental plan. Vanilla. SFAS 87 accounting rules. Vested EE terminates employment and goes to work for a competitor. Sponsor state that this violates the non-compete clause in the plan. Forfeits the entire liability for this EE, thus increasing the accumulated gain (or decreasing the accumulated loss) in SFAS 87 balance sheet. But EE files lawsuit. If the suit/settlement later results in some payment to the EE, should this be accounted for as if it is paid under the plan (even if not specified)? What if a settlement is reached after the plan no longer exists? Any specific cites?

It's not clear to me that your situation is the same as Q&A-8. When you say "partial", do you mean that $X (orY%) of the life annuity is paid by the insurance company TO the participant, or is it paid to the trust? If the insurance company is paying to the trust, then NO settlement has occurred; this would be merely an "investment" of the trust. If the insurance company is paying directly to the retiree, Q&A-8 can be interpreted to define your situation as not a settlement. Still a good question. (I have a hard time understanding why a trust would purchase such insurance contracts.) Other point is the word "significant". See Q&A-18. I also suggest that the determination of significant should be related to the entire PBO of the plan, not merely the PBO of the retirees. Might be that the auditor has an opinion on this Q&A.

You might find this discussion useful. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=6713

ditto. The point is that a YOVS could be defined in more than one way, so check the document to find out.

And of what value would that "clear case" be? If the ER is defaulting on the loan(s), then the ER is probably defaulting on everything else and is bankrupt. Not much for the employee to go after. Might be a case where the exec should review their resume.

In general, 5500's are public information. However, some of the schedules are not: schedules E, F, and SSA. Schedule B is not open to public when attached to a 5500EZ.