david rigby

As MWYATT has pointed out, if he can afford it, he could probably have a deductible contribution (per year) of about 100K to 150K, to fund the maximum benefit for a DB plan (currently an annuity of 130K per year). This is a perfect example of how and when a DB plan is far superior to a DC plan; that is, establishing a plan "late" and being able to fund substantial amounts. [This message has been edited by pax (edited 03-11-99).]

Follow-up to mwyatt: Are you saying that if all prior "employment" was under Sub. S and there was no comp paid, only Sub S dividends, that we could still count the prior "employment" as service for the 415 DC fraction and the 415 phase-in? Or perhaps, because there is no comp, then it does not matter since 25 % of zero is zero. Come to think of it, maybe it is not relevant for the DC fraction. Does that affect the 415 phase-in? My question originates in the assumption that, because there was no comp, then there is no "employment relationship". Where is my logic flawed? Thanks. [This message has been edited by pax (edited 03-08-99).]

I'm not an expert on 457 plans (try the Government Plans Message Board), but if you can contribute $400 per month to that plan, it will dwarf the $2000 annual IRA limit, so you get to save more. Can you do both? Remember the adage: don't put all your eggs in one basket.

What if question: What if the prior employer had been a Sub S, and the individual had taken Sub. S dividends but no comp?

I'm having trouble being sympathetic here. A qualified plan should specify this issue. Either way, the plan should state it. Most of the documents in our office specify that no benefits will be paid until the participant has retired, died, terminated, become disabled, etc. (or some similar language). The purpose of such language is to remove all doubt. If benefits may commence at NRD, you want to spell it out to remove doubt. I'm surprised that the prototype did not include this, or at least an option to spell it out. IMHO, in the absence of anything, I would assume that payments are supposed to commence after a severance of employment, because that is what a plan is for (speaking in general).

There is a Q&A column on BenefitsLink entitled ERISA Q&A ... Q&A 20 posted there (click) might answer your question. [Note: This message has been edited by Dave Baker]

When a participant terminates employment and has a vested (deferred) benefit, the sponsor must notify participant by the time of filing the 5500 for the plan year following the plan year of termination. Example, assume a calendar plan year, so that the 5500 is due (with extensions) at 10/15 following close of plan year. If EE terminates on 2/25/98, then the notification to EE must be made by 10/15/2000. If EE terminates on 12/15/98, then the 10/15/2000 due date also applies.

Interesting comments above on escheat and whether the non-distributed participants put a plan in an audit situation. Both good points. Perhaps, if a particular plan sponsor has much of these, the plan should be amended to accelerate the payment date, before the terminating participant "leaves the area". If you use the forfeiture route, be sure that you keep good records of the amount, date, SSN, vesting

what is the plan year? How often does the plan specify that benefits will be revalued? Your 60-day comment is not correct. For example, if your account balance is over $5000, then the plan cannot pay it out to you without your permission (that is, the plan probably has some procedure for you to "apply" for benefits). Try reading your Summary Plan Description (SPD) for help on when benefits are paid.

Do you have anything in writing from when you were "medically retired"? If so, you may have an address. As an alternative, do you have a Summary Plan Description (SPD) from the pension and/or profit-sharing and/or other plan(s). If so, that will have an address. I recommend that you write your inquiry, noting that you expect a response within 30 days. There may also be some information at an AA website (not likely, but worth looking).

A bit more background please. Are you asking about a distribution on plan termination, on retirement, on termination(vested), lump sum payment, spousal consent, direct rollover, etc.?

I'm not an attorney either, but I second the previous opinion that you should seek competent legal advice. Make sure it is someone who has some knowledge of ERISA. You may also be at risk of what you are giving up to him, not just what he is giving (or not giving) to you. A spousal waiver under ERISA is a very significant thing. Tread very carefully. Not to be morbid, but since he is so much older than you, there is a strong likelihood that you will survive him. That probably has something to do with the attitude of his family towards you. Let me be Dear Abby for a second: If his family (I assume that means his adult children) seem to be so concerned about what you might inherit (that is, to the exclusion of themselves), then it may be possible to avoid some conflict by having him gift items (or interest in these items) or assets while he is living. See competent estate planning legal advice. Another issue might be life insurance (on him) which is designed to pay estate taxes at his death. Personal opinion: don't take advice from anyone who is selling anything other than advice.

As most actuaries know, the 1983 Group Annuity Mortality Table was published by the Society of Actuaries in the 1983 Transactions (Volume XXXV). The article is recommended reading, so that the user can understand: 1. the source of the data, and 2. that the table was originally intended to be an interim table. Accordingly, the authors of the study/article/table decided to create Projection Scale H (see Tables 19 and 20 for separate male and female versions of Scale H). The purpose of the scale (or any projection scale) is to use a quantitative method for estimating future mortality improvement. The data underlying the 1983 GAM is now relatively old (more than 20 years). Thus, there is a recognition that the rates of mortality in the table are outdated (possibly outdated at the time the table was published, editorial comment). The use of Scale H was proposed to allow actuaries to project this mortality improvement on a consistent basis. If you need more info, please respond. P.S. I went to the SOA website but did not see the table. You might try it yourself: soa.org [This message has been edited by pax (edited 02-25-99).]

As usual, Lorraine offers good advice. Let me add a couple of points: 1. There is a provision is tax law for a waiver of a minimum funding requirement. However, the due date for applying is 2-1/2 months after the close of the plan year, even though the due date of the contribution is 8-1/2 months (example: 3/15/99 deadline for applying for a waiver for 1998 calendar year, while the contribution is due 9/15/99). My limited experience with waivers is to avoid them. 2. As a mid-point between continuing a plan that is (temporarily) expensive and terminating it, the plan sponsor can "freeze" it. The sponsor still must make required contributions for years up to the freeze. A frozen plan can be unfrozen anytime, including awarding service for the frozen period, usually without difficulty.

let's not mix the issues. A QDRO is for the wife to waive (or determine) any portion of her interest in HIS benefit. Waiver is probably easier than dividing. If properly written, one QDRO may be able to take care of both plans. However, this does not have any bearing on HER benefit under either plan. With regard to 415, each has ac accrued benefit in the DB plan and an account in the DC plan. Each is subject to 415, on its own. [This message has been edited by pax (edited 02-22-99).]

It depends on the wording in the amendment. If the new definition is silent, then a reasonable interpretation may be that it affects all years compensation. That is OK, as long as the 411(d)(6) protection applies to the accrued benefit as of 1/1/96 (or adoption date of the amendment if later).

i have a conventional DB plan with a special minimum: the benefit provided by a prior account under a money purchase plan, with earnings. That is, the DB plan is a restatement of the money purchase plan. As you might expect, the conventional DB accrual is often less than the benefit from the account balance. By the way, the account balance is credited annually with actual earnings, no min. or max. Question: what is the guaranteed benefit for PBGC premium purposes?

I don't agree with your analysis of the Regs. My read of 1.416-1, Q&A T-24, is that the accrued contribution is included. Therefore, the 12/31/97 T-H ratio of 66.67% would stand as applicable for the 1998 plan year.

the coverage test of IRC 410(B) looks first at percentages of EEs covered by a plan, without regard to whether the multiple plans are comparable. If the % test is not passed, then you use the average benefits test, which does look at the level of benefits (using an "average benefit percentage"). If you fail that test, you fail. You may be able to pass either by adjusting the ratio test, or the average benefits test, but not necessarily both. but don't forget the SLOB rules under IRC 410(B)(5). You stated that this is a controlled gorup of banks, so normally that would exclude a SLOB, but I think there is also a special SLOB exception where the business is geographically distant from the rest of the controlled group, so that it might be a SLOB on that basis (please check this). If you don't have a SLOB, then the expansion of the coverage may be the easiest way to deal with this. [This message has been edited by pax (edited 02-10-99).]

good start. "Comparing" can mean several things, such as coverage (percentage and types of EEs covered by any plan), or benefits (level of total benefits). I'm still not sure what you are asking.

Even though plan sponsors are no longer required to send the DOL a copy of SPDs, it may be possible to obtain a copy of one from them. I suggest contacting the Pension and Welfare Benefits Adminstration (PWBA) agency of the DOL. Try www.dol.gov/dol/pwba/

No. As you said, the plan was terminated. Therefore, no entity is "maintaining the plan". However, the insurance company does now have responsibility for payment of benefits. It probably does not have responsibility to track down the individuals when they reach 65 (or whatever retirement age); if the EEs were notified (properly) of the annuity purchase, then the EE must contact the ins. co. to start payment of monthly benefits. The annuity must contain all the features of the original plan, such as the ability to elect Early Retirement, optional forms of benefit, etc.

What is the purpose of the comparison? Need some more description of what you are asking and what you are doing with the comparison.

I have several recommendations: 1. This website is terrific. I use it everyday. 2. The "Panel" series of textbooks is pretty good, and is generally user-friendly. 3. Other texts of long-standing, such as "Pension Planning" (publisher is Irwin),and "Fundamentals of Private Pensions" (part of a series published/sponsored by the Wharton School). 4. There are several CD-ROMs that are excellent research sources. Try RIA, CCH, BNA, Spencers, etc. In our office, we have 2: the BNA research service (includes IRC, regs, DOL, PBGC, relevant court cases, etc. Very good.) and a CD of all (or most) of the Panel books (Pension Answer Book, 401k Answer Book, etc. Also good.)

Can you say "daily"?