david rigby

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.

Apples and oranges. I suspect the following: 1. The plan year is the calendar year. 2. The plan formerly used the PBGC rates to determine the value of a lump sum. 3. The interest rate defined in the plan (for the purpose of determining a lump sum value) was the PBGC rate in effect at the beginning of the plan year (that is, 4.0% at Jan. 99, and 5.0% at Jan. 2000). 4. The plan has been amended to adopt the GATT provisions for determining a lump sum. In order to completely answer your questions, I think we need some more info: a. Your date of birth. b. Your DB plan benefit earned as of whatever date you severed employment, probably expressed as a monthly benefit commencing as of Normal Retirement Date. c. The plan's defintion of "Normal form of payment", probably "life annuity" but not necessarily. d. The plan's definition of Normal Retirement Date,likely age 65, but not necessarily. e. The date the plan adopted the GATT provisions. f. Confirm whether Item (1) above is correct.

The Society of Actuaries maintains an excellent resource called Statistics for Employee Benefit Actuaries. The item you want is in Table 1A. http://www.soa.org/library/stats/seb.htm In general, the rate that has come to be known as the "GATT rate" is the monthly average of the 30-year Treasury yield rate (note that this is not the rate on the last business day of the month). Perhaps someone else knows of a site, possibly IRS or Federal Reserve, where this is also posted.

To be picky, the term "super top-heavy" is no longer applicable if your plan has adopted the repeal of IRC 415(e).

Sometimes (perhaps often?) a TPA negotiates a separate contract/agreement w/r/t the tremination process. This probably includes such items as filing the final 5500, etc. even though this action occurs after the TPA has received its final payment. Such agreement should address who will handle routine questions that arise shortly thereafter, especially if such questions come from IRS or DOL. It happens often.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2828

If there is no precedent, and no other indication of the original intent, then using the actual population as of a particular time is not an unreasonable definition, but that should mean a one-time decision, not likely to change. BTW, if the actual population is really 95/5, then it seems silly to me to define a blend. Another perpective is that you don't really care about the population mix; a better comparison would be the PV of benefits (probably using a turnover assumption) as of some "snapshot" date. At any rate, you would probably want to round your blending percentages, especially if you expect that data as of your snapshot might be changing. For example, if you have 84/16, then round to 80/20, or even 75/25. If the group is expected to change significantly over the next 10 years, then 60/40 might be reasonable.

Such long discussions! I understand your perspective about being "screwed", but that is merely the definition of the benefit. That is, the plan defines what comes out of the plan by using a formula. That formula includes service and final average comp, both determined as of the applicable date (that is, death, disability, retirement, or other termination of employment). Yes, your benefit will be less at 65 than if you had remained in one plan, but that is exactly how this type of plan works. It is not designed to "hurt", but is just the opposite, to "reward" long service. This is just what happens when any employee changes jobs. Of course, in this case, the "other termination of employment" is not your choice. Unfortunately, it appears to be a motivation for ill feelings. I'm not trying to defend anyone or anything, just describe. There really is no "actuarial constant" as described in your first post. Instead, use "service".

I'm not sure why you are actuarially increasing the 4/1/99 benefit to 7/1/99. Usually this provision refers to the normal retirement benefit, which in this case is calculated as of 1/1/95.

I would assume a 50/50 blend, based on the wording you have given, but it's hard to believe this has not come up before, thus creating a precedent.

Does the plan address this already? If so, then plan provisions would appear to be most important, even if it is more "generous" than required. IRC 401(a)(25) requires that actuarial assumptions be specified, but I don't know if this has full applicability to govt. plans. Of course, the plan would be exempt from IRC 411. On a practical level, it seems that the sponsor needs to establish a philosophy about this, such as, "we want the rate to be fixed" or "we want the rate to be tied to some external measure of interest". The former might mean that the rate is fixed at (eg) 7.5%. The latter might mean that the rate is defined as (eg) "prime plus 150 basis points". There is no reason that the plan could not use the GATT rate, or that rate plus some loading factor, etc. I also believe the same issue applies to the choice of a mortality table, and I suggest the use of some current standard table, which would allow for future modification by plan amendment.

As in so many cases, the answer begins with "what does the plan say." Most plans address the case where a participant is eligible to retire but dies before actually retiring. Likely, there are no "back payments" but careful review of the death benefit provisions is required. The most likely benefit is to the surviving spouse, assuming the employee had retired the day before death, probably with a J&S form of benefit with x% continued to the surviving spouse. ("x" is at least 50, could be 75 or 100, etc. Review the death benefit provisions.) If the death benefit is defined similar to this shorthand description, then the first thing to determine is the employee's accrued benefit. If an actuarial increase of the NRD benefit should be included in that, so be it. Beware that there may be no benefit if there is no surviving spouse.