david rigby

Not disagreeing with the above, and thanks to Dave for starting this thread (many of our clients should probably read this), but doesn't there seem to be a danger of "dumbing down"? That is, we (and many consultants, attorneys, etc.) seem to be attentive to the wide variety of interests and abilities of plan participants; there is no such thing as "Joe Average". The more we try to address this, we may be opening the door to others simply assuming "it is up to the plan sponsor to make me understand, and if I screw up, then I can always sue." End of "gripe of the day."

No single answer. The first thing to do is see what the plan document says. Most documents use one of the two most common sets of definitions: 1. One year of vesting service for each plan year in which the EE works at least 1000 hours. 2. One year of vesting service for each plan year in which the EE is employed on both the first and last day of the plan year. Have I oversimplified too much?

Just an opinion, since that language is pretty sparse (that is the nicest word I could think of): Use the UP84 table and the PBGC interest rates for April 1999. Caveat, I think you might have a problem with using April 1999 if the lump sum was actually paid anytime other than May 1999. Second Caveat: If the lump sum is not yet paid, then you likely have a minimum under GATT to worry about, even if not yet adopted.

IRC 411 (in entirety) does not apply to governmental plans. However, the plan itself or some provision of state law might make the plan subject to the application of all or a portion of 411.

Believe it or not, some of us are EA's. We might be able to answer the question if you can state it.

There are always potential anti-cutback issues with any plan amendment. The amendment cannot "take away" any benefit, or right to receive it at a particular point in time, that has accrued as of the later of (a) the effective date of the amendment or (B) the date of its adoption. Most amendments will include some generic provision (or possibly a "preamble") that states the amendment will not reduce any benefit accrued as of the later of (a) or (B). It is possible that your amendment already includes the appropriate language.

You might get beyond the issues of distributable event if (1) the EE is over NRA, and (2) the plan permits in-service distribtions to those over NRA.

What about the IRA rollover option in this Revenue Ruling? http://www.benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2000-36.shtml

IRS Reg 1.72-9 is here: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx...6cfr1v2_00.html Good luck getting it to open.

Hope this is what you mean: For the PY beginning in 2001, HCE determination is based on the comp earned in the PY beginning in 2000. If 2000 comp is more than $85000, then the EE is an HCE for 2001.

No tax rate is as high as 100%. Can't imagine why the beneficiary would not want it. BTW, tax on a distribution from a qualified plan is deferred if rolled over into an IRA. Typically, a distribution to surviving spouse is made to the spouse, not to the estate of the deceased. Beneficiary might consider delaying receipt, if that helps make a tax situation any better.

Ditto, but also check the plan document to see if it imposes any restrictions on the types of amendments that are permitted.

I wonder if there was a distributable event.

"benefit, right, and feature" Defined in Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-12. Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-4 is Nondiscriminatory availability of benefits, rights, and features.

What do you mean by "reject"? Note that in many plans, if the value of a benefit due is less than $5000, the plan will automatically make the distribution.

If we are talking about deferrals in 2000, there may be way to fix it. Most payroll systems and 401(k) recordkeeping systems will recognize negative deductions/deferrals. May be possible to apply such to one (or both) plans so that the total deferrals by 12/31/00 are 10000. Note that this is probably the EE's problem, hence EE's task to fix it, since it is not the responsibility of the unrelated plans.

Internal Revenue Bulletins can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/bus_info/bullet.html

I think that these are separate issues. But, to clarify, are you stating that there is (or might be?) a partial termination without regard to the "same desk" rule?

Yes, there does seem to be some lack of responsibility, but there may also be some colossal lack of common sense on the part of whoever designed the ballots. Just looking at what we saw on the news programs, I agree that the ballot was not well designed. Perhaps we should ask why this is a problem now, and why not in earlier elections. Also, are there other races on the same ballot with the similar layout? The problem may have existed for much longer but did not seem so important because this race is so close. These may be questions for Florida citizens and elections officials primarily, but, as Dave says, it is a lesson in how mistakes made by some can affect us all. Those to whom we owe our primary allegiance are not those in our own state, and certainly not any political party, but are called "Americans."

I suggest getting your invoice paid in advance. Alternatively, the bankruptcy trustee might pre-approve the work, in writing, so that your invoice will be paid later.

You state "the contract". Does this mean there was a union contract? If so, and if there is still representation, then I suggest starting with the local union rep.

Hahahahahaha. "IRS", "future" and "certain" all in one sentence.

If you can give more description of the Q, someone can probably help.

Sounds to me like some confusion in terminolgy. The requirement for an SPD is on the PLAN. The insurance policy is merely the method (or one of the methods) that the plan uses to provide the benefit.

This may not be on point, but it is relevant to the way our society views savings and qualified plans. I hope that our perspective of all savings vehicles can be flexible enough to recognize this. (Taken from an earlier discussion topic.) People in their 20s do not need to be focusing primarily on saving for retirement. Most people have different needs at different points in their lives, and saving is no exception to that rule. Sure, put some aside in your 20s, but don't put it all in a vehicle which is intended for retirement savings. Put some aside for the shorter term needs, especially saving for a house and college education for children. Yes, I know that there are vehicles that can be used for both, but what I am discussing primarily is the "mindset" of long-term vs. short-term. Also, don't forget, that those in their 20s should put some aside to anticipate being a one-earner family with kids. It does not matter if you think that won't happen: odds are very high that it will happen, or that you will wish it could happen, at least temporarily or partially. The savings before kids merely gives you more options later.