david rigby

I assume that the freeze amendment did not also give 100% vesting. If it did, no brainer, since you can't undo that by amendment. My judgement is that the two non-family EEs who terminated do constitute a partial termination. but there is still a facts and circumstances issue in this determination. For example, if one of them terminated by dying, then you probably don't have to count that against the 20% test. Look at IRS form 5310 and instructions. There is a question (don't remember the line number but it is the bottom of page 2) that asks for the number of non-vested terminations by year. If over 20%, you are requested to show why it will not constitute a Partial termination. The fact that the son and wife quit (by the way, 4 out of 6 employees quitting is 66.7%, not 60%) should not have any effect on the vesting of the 2 others. If the 2 others are a partial termination (2 out of 6 is 33%) then that by itself will cause 100% vesting.

I assume that the freeze amendment did not also give 100% vesting. If it did, no brainer, since you can't undo that by amendment. My judgement is that the two non-family EEs who terminated do constitute a partial termination. but there is still a facts and circumstances issue in this determination. For example, if one of them terminated by dying, then you probably don't have to count that against the 20% test. Look at IRS form 5310 and instructions. There is a question (don't remember the line number but it is the bottom of page 2) that asks for the number of non-vested terminations by year. If over 20%, you are requested to show why it will not constitute a Partial termination. The fact that the son and wife quit (by the way, 4 out of 6 employees quitting is 66.7%, not 60%) should not have any effect on the vesting of the 2 others. If the 2 others are a partial termination (2 out of 6 is 33%) then that by itself will cause 100% vesting.

Seen it. done it. I think it is still OK. You are correct in stating "incidental".

Are you affiliated with the Plan in any way? If so, I don't see how you can respond to that question, at least not without EE approval. As far as what assumptions to use, that seems to me to pretty difficult without information about the Plan provisions. If you need to do something anyway, I suggest GATT, with a healthy dose of caveats.

No. I see no implication that an ER can "force" severance of employment, at least not in any different circumstance than at any other time. The change in the statute, and the IRS Notice, do not in any way modify ADEA rules. The ER (in most circumstances in this "free market economy") has an "employment at will" doctrine (I think that is the term). Where do you read any special ability in 96-67?

Can I amend a DB plan definition of Actuarial Equivalent (for purposes of lump sum calcs only) by using the LESSER of: the old 417(3) basis, or the new 417(e) bais, such that the latter becomes the only definition when the transition period expires?

(1) Are you vested? (2) The notification requirement is by the time the plan sponsor files the annual report with the IRS (form 5500) for the plan year following the year of serverance of employment. For example, assume a calendar year plan and that you left on June 1, 1997. Then the plan sponsor must notify you (and the SSA) by the filing of the 5500 for the 1998 plan year, which is generally 7 months after the END of that year. In this example, that could be July 31, 1999. (A 2-1/2 month extension is also permitted and is common.) Note that the form on which you will actually be listed is not open to public inspection because it will likely contain information about other individuals.