david rigby

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by the question, but I'll add: If you are referring to the possibility that an employee might have 125 dollars "left over" and can then take them in cash or defer into a 401(k), then those dollars are subject to FICA tax.

Well............ If there have been no distributions, then the sponsor has failed to complete the termination process, which may automatically void it. That probably leaves a frozen plan, but careful review of the documentation is called for. It is my understanding that a plan termination can be cancelled before distributions have commenced, but that doing so after some, but not all, distributions have been paid would be "suspect." I suggest avoiding the term "un-terminated." No doubt I have left something out.

http://www.benefitslink.com/taxregs/54.498...80B-final.shtml

There may be some confusing terminology here: "Contributions in DB plan". If this means that the deceased made contributions to the plan, typically by payroll deduction, then the next question is whether those were pre-tax or after-tax contributions. In the U.S., the only such pre-tax contributions possible are in a governmental plan. All other sponsors (whether non-profit or for-profit) could permit employee contributions only on an after-tax basis to a DB plan. (At least I hope that is right.) Such plans are generally rare. After-tax contributions are not eligible for rollover to an IRA, and would also not be subject to any (20% or otherwise) withholding. There would likely be some interest to be paid, which is taxable and (I think) rollable. Did I miss anything?

RJM is correct. However, the plan must still comply until the plan does proper amendment or reference to appeal.

Tagging onto Greg's comment, you might investigate whether any trade groups offer/sponsor some or all of the benefits you are interested in. If they do, then that is just one of your options. Don't assume that will be the best or the cheapest.

I think that is correct. But a word of caution: "Minimum funding under 412 trumps 404". This may not be a universal statement if the plan year differs from the sponsor's fiscal year.

I'm not sure whether it comes under "fiducuary duty", but the plan (or administrator or sponsor) must notify any participant who has a vested benefit, assuming this is an ERISA-covered qualified plan. In addition, the participant should be reported on the Schedule SSA (attachment to the 5500), unless already paid out by the due date of the 5500.

Since he is over NRA, has he thought about commencing benefit payments?

I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but this is a pretty good summary: http://www.cigna.com/professional/news/com...st/y2ksw_w.html (click on State Withholding Information Sheet for a nice summary.)

You might try this: http://www.sisterstates.com/

No we did not do this without EE signature. In the case of a lost participant, this is probably not a viable course of action. In doing search, have you considered the possibilty of death? leaving the country? doing a search for a relative?

I ran into something similar a few years ago. The participant was not lost, but the spouse refused to sign. We could not wait an indefinite time for one spouse to make up his mind, so we had to do something else. The amount was about $8000. We could not find any insurer willing to sell a deferred annuity, for any amount. The resolution was to calculate an immediate benefit under the 50%J&S provisions of the plan (even though the plan had no "early commencement" at that age), and purchase an annuity on that basis. For the question about lost participants, there have been several discussion threads on this topic. Try a search of the message boards.

Several discussion threads on this topic. Try a search of the message boards.

This sounds to me like an issue of timing and defintions. If the Plan states a contribution of X% of comp, then there must be a definition of comp somewhere. It may be defined but may not be used in the determination of actual deposits. [Edited by pax on 09-25-2000 at 03:34 PM]

One addition to Tom's comment: The "buyback" is no longer relevant because of the repeal of IRC 415(e). But the plans must recognize this repeal, either thru plan amendment or by valid reference.

These previous discussions may be helpful. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=3013 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=3760 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=3742 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=244

Bend points for 2000 are: 531 and 3202. Most recent average national wage is $28,861.44, based on data 2 years old. Do you get the Enrolled Actuaries Report? The November issue each year contains updates for most everything. My recollection is that all the updates are based on data (wages, CPI, etc.) as of September 30 (either for the third quarter or for the 12 months ending on that date). You can also access Statistics for Employee Benefit Actuaries maintained by the SOA. http://www.soa.org/library/stats/seb.htm

Let's not forget the last question. 4. Congress. Your tax dollars at work.

Looks to me like you've answered your own question. If it is not "eligible" under IRC 402©(8)(B), then what other definition are you looking for?

Perhaps better terminolgy would be to state that *family aggregation* was repealed, but this has no effect on *family attribution.*

No. I believe that each plan stands on its own with respect to RMD.

Well, not just anybody can use the term "pettifoggery".

I have always thought that such a definition was not valid, but this link includes discussion to the contrary: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=4404 In addition, you may wish to do a search of the message boards for other threads.

That is correct. Here is a link to the reg, but I could not get it to ever connect. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx...6cfr1v5_99.html See Reg. 1.411(d)-4 Q&A2(B)(2)(ii).