david rigby

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).

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=6995

Here is a link to ERISA. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/29/ch18.html I'm not sure why the section numbers do not correspond to those section numbers in my hardcopy. Section 4021(b)discusses those plans to which 4021 (that is, PBGC) does not apply. This is the text of subsection (2) as included in the original: " (2) established and maintained for its employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing, or to which the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937 applies and which is financed by contributions required under that Act, " The legislative history (which is at paragraph 5107 in my CCH 1974 copy of ERISA) includes even less than the statute: "Plans specifically excluded from coverage are: ... (2) governmental plans (including plans set up under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1935 or 1937, ..."

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that the requirement is that the plan specify how to convert from the normal form to any available option. There is no reason that option A cannot have a conversion factor of 100% and option B have a conversion factor of 95%, or whatever.

If you have not done so yet, you might try searching the message boards. Here is one discussion thread that might get you started. There have been others. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=1808 Here is another one: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2687

I'm not aware of any requirement that the various optional forms of payment should be actuarially equivalent to each other. I have seen a plan which defined the "Normal Form" as a life annuity for unmarrried, and as 100% J&S for married, with no change in the $ amount.

I agree with Gary. In fact, because the plan was amended in any way that might affect the accrued benefit, then you *must* grandfather the amount as of the date of change (that is, the later of the effective date or the adoption date). Gary is also correct in his reference to plan provisions. If the plan is silent on this (hard to believe it could omit a definition of PIA), then you should probably adopt whatever has been done in the past. In more than 20 years, I have never seen a definition of PIA that included any increases in future salary of wage base. The likely definitions are to assume level future earnings or zero future earnings.

To followup on rcline46's comments, most plans (especially defined benefit plans) require any participant to sever employment to receive a benefit. This typically includes death, disability, retirement, or other termination of employment. Some plans, but by no means a majority, permit an employee to receive benefits at Normal Retirement (defined in the plan, but ususally 65) while still employed. If A's plan had this provision, it cannot be removed by transferring to B.

Tom has summarized very nicely. One addition to his comment: "...the following year you would report him only if you did not pay him out". You also do not need to report on the SSA if the EE 1. is rehired, or 2. forfeits all the benefit, which could occur under a DB plan in case of death with no surviving spouse, and which seems very unlikely in a profit-sharing plan.

I agree with rcline46. But if the plan was actually "transferred", then A or B or both should be doing some formal communication describing that transaction.

Carol Calhoun maintains an excellent website with links to many useful items. http://www.benefitsattorney.com/links/Inte...evenue_Service/ Of course, most of the IRS/DOL items on the web are the recent ones. If you need something older, it may take some more digging. Of course, don't forget the usual suspects: http://www.dol.gov/ http://www.irs.gov/ [Edited by pax on 09-07-2000 at 05:42 PM]

I agree with Hank, except for the items discussed in the thread mentioned above, especially the Defense of Marriage Act. There is also another thread that might include some useful discussion: [ http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=451