david rigby

Most pension actuaries will advise to do the testing (at least approximately) first; ie, before plan design and timing is finalized. Has this been done?

Just thinking out loud, any possibility your 2 plans are (or should be) treated as one plan for 5300 purposes (and maybe 5500 purposes)?

This may be correct; however, my understanding of the "mailbox rule" is that the postmark governs, rather than the date deposited in a mailbox. I'm ready to be corrected if there is other information.

Some prior relevant discussion here: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/58857-to-some-a-numerically-interesting-date

Larry's advice of practicality is wise. Here is another reason: since the sponsor and/or Plan Administrator might be incurring a cost for its DRO review, it is prudent to make sure that cost is not increased (perhaps doubled) due to having to re-process a corrected DRO. The phone call recommended by Larry is inexpensive.

I can recommend several very good attorneys who specialize in employee benefits.

It means the remaining loan will be deemed to be a distribution; therefore part of your taxable income. BTW, it's likely that your loan documentation includes some discussion about this.

Exemption applies. See page 33 of IRS publication 575: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf.

Several similar prior discussion threads, might be helpful to you. Try the Search box, with various forms of the words "embezzle" or "theft.

Your (1) and (2) are probably acceptable, but please refer the details to your pension actuary. BTW, it's possible (maybe desirable) to make sure an ERISA attorney has been involved in reviewing plan design. Don't overlook non-discrimination issues, even if you think the plan design is "vanilla". It appears you have stated your purpose: downsize with voluntary reductions. (It's possible to have multiple purposes. IMHO, stating the purpose(s) is a good thing, but not in the amendment.) Take note that some windows also include provisions that permit the employer to establish limits, based on the number of acceptances if "over-subscribed", but this usually happens in very large employee populations.

It has always been true that most ERW designs provide a better increase to younger employees, especially when measured relative to the pre-window benefit. The final plan design may incorporate some of the concerns you express in order to provide a more meaningful "bump" to older employees, but (and this is important) you (often) don't have to do so. For example, suppose the plan imposes a service limit (eg, 30 years); the ERW can temporarily override this limit if desired. I caution employers to make sure they have fully identified the purpose(s) of any ERW before deciding on the nuts and bolts. Of course, don't lose sight of any non-discrimination issues. As always, consult with your pension actuary.

Might it require a DL within X time, otherwise the plan is deemed to be void?

First, verify if the plan even exists.

Does the plan have language that automatically terminates the plan if the sponsor goes bankrupt and/or ceases to exist?

No matter the original source of contributions, isn't the payment "from the plan"?

Answer to the question in the title is: Plan Administrator.

Ouch!

Data as of August 31, 2018 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.91 3.91 Aa 4.07 4.01 4.04 A 4.24 4.20 4.22 Baa 4.64 4.91 4.78 Avg 4.32 4.26 4.29 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.70 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.80 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.96

Well, it's possible an actuary can solve this, mostly by trial and error, BUT... there is missing information, such as: · Does the plan already define a mortality table for this purpose? If so, it may be public information. · Is there a known method for determining the discount rate(s)? · Are any ancillary benefits included in the PV? Most importantly, are you saying the person is NOW 41.86 and the pension STARTS at 45.66? (That's a pretty low age for commencement.)

Don't forget: TH conditions/testing is concerned with Key Employees, not HCEs. Might be the same, might not.

If an actuary is involved in (knowingly) participating in an inaccurate filing, it will (probably) be a violation of the Actuarial Code of Professional Conduct. Other professions likely have similar standards.

Seems that the difficulty of testing depends on the complexity of plan design. TH testing might be the most problematic with two vendors.

Gambling and professional sports? What could go wrong?

Ask for reasoning, cite(s).

Are the participants paying FICA on each year's accrual? Normally, this will be less than paying FICA at a later date of receipt.