david rigby

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

Here is the thread mentioned above. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=6617

When all else fails, try cash. You might also review this thread: http://209.207.198.244/showthread.php?threadid=1805 [Edited by pax on 09-04-2000 at 09:21 AM]

Sounds like well-reasoned advice from Phil and Hank. But a followup, has the ABA or any other legal organization, created a "model QDRO"?

Yes, but watch out for top-heavy.

I agree with Beth.

This is the way I try to summarize this rule: 1. Any benefit whose value exceeds the involuntary cashout limit may not be distributed prior to Normal Retirement without the *participant's* approval. 2. Any plan where the benefit is payable in an annuity form must offer (at least) one J&S option, and the spouse's approval then gets added to (1) above. Yes the Plan must be formally amended to change the limit. Note that the $3500 or $5000 is the largest amount that a plan can use to define its involuntary cashout limit. Smaller amounts are permitted.

New withholding requirement for North Carolina, effective January 1, 2001. http://www.dor.state.nc.us/practitioner/in...es/pd-00-2.html

Sorry if this is stupid comment, but what about deferring payment into the next year?

Not disagreeing with the prior posts, but I'll add another perspective. 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 now, 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 you 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 (more likely, your wife, the mother of your children) will wish it could happen. BTW, congratulations. Marriage is the basic building block of society. I'm always glad to see others joining in.

Try the item immediately before "1998 Pakg 5500 Package 5500 Cover and Y2K Alert", 22 page set of instructions.

It depends. The plan provisions in effect at the time of severance of employment (for whatever reason) are likely what will govern. If the person was vested at that date, then (assuming it is the same plan) that vested benefit should still exist. Most plans contain language, often contained in a preamble, something like this: "..for any participant who terminated employment prior to the effective date of this plan/restatement, the benefit amount and all rights and features thereof will be determined by the terms of the plan as in effect at such termination of employment, and the provisions of this plan/restatement will not apply, unless expressly stated otherwise herein...."