david rigby

I like this statement made at the 2018 Enrolled Actuaries Meeting: "you can have land in your plan, or you can have me as your actuary, but you can't have both."

... and, no, the J&S waiver did not eliminate a right to seek a QDRO.

Hmmm. "Everyone gets it" does not automatically make something safe harbor, or non-discriminatory. I'm not sure if the proposal will cause a failure of 401(l), but I suspicious. At any rate, if the proposed additional service is restricted to the "base" portion of the benefit, it should be acceptable. However, I'm interested in why this is being proposed. Is it to "use up" some excess assets? There are multiple ways to address that.

Hold on here. The original post did not say "termination" or "retirement". IRS reg 1.401(a)(9)-2 Q&A2, defines "the term required beginning date means April 1 of the calendar year following the later of the calendar year in which the employee attains age 701⁄2 or the calendar year in which the employee retires from employment with the employer maintaining the plan." Has the participant reached the RBD?

I fully endorse everything said above by Mike and Effen. This discussion forum is not the best place to analyze the details of your situation; there is wide variation among plans that include a disability benefit. I urge you to take Mike's advice about enlisting a volunteer to help you. The program he linked to is sponsored by the American Academy of Actuaries: an experienced pension actuary volunteers to dig in, with you, to analyze the details. The actuary has probably done similar "detective work" previously and will know the right questions to ask.

Peter, just curious: are you suggesting/advocating a "solution", whether now or in the future?

Consider the proper understanding of "freezing" an account. It's possible the account was "frozen", in the sense that no one else (ie, other than the person whose name is on the account) has access. The term "freeze" will (probably) not include an action that transfers the invested amounts into another type of investment. In other words, the amount remains invested, which means it can go up or down.

Data as of 03/29/18 (Thursday, market closed on Friday 03/30/18) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.77 3.77 Aa 3.90 3.94 3.92 A 4.07 4.08 4.08 Baa 4.48 4.69 4.59 Avg 4.15 4.12 4.14 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 2.45 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.66 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.90

Don't forget the possible use of the 12-month rule in 401(a)(11)(D). Of course, many plans don't include it.

The original questioner included a statement (after the original post), Others have used that vague phrase to jump to "sharia-compliant", etc. Probably not a good idea to assume anything in this area before gathering more information; it might have nothing to do with Islam, etc.

Sleeps with the fishes.

Are you willing to accept 5500 instructions? Final Return/Report If all assets under the plan (including insurance/annuity contracts) have been distributed to the participants and beneficiaries or legally transferred to the control of another plan, and when all liabilities for which benefits may be paid under a welfare benefit plan have been satisfied, check the final return/report box in Part I, line B at the top of the Form 5500. Do not mark the final return/report box if you are reporting participants and/or assets at the end of the plan year. In addition, there is a similar comment in the instructions at Line 5a for both the Schedule H and the Schedule I.

Isn't TH testing on an aggregate basis?

FWIW, nothing on point in the Gray Book.

Do you need a 5500 for the 2018 PY? I don't know, but there does not seem to be any requirement for the Schedule SB.

Good grief! Paying an admin fee just to get below a threshold? Somebody needs some advice from a pension actuary well-versed in small plans.

I'll take a different approach: do nothing. The EE does not get to decide what benefit plan(s) are offered by the ER. Whether or not the objection is based on religious grounds, the existence of an account INSIDE THE PLAN does not cause him (or anyone else) any harm (IMHO). If he doesn't want it, he doesn't have to take it when he severs employment.

Just my opinion, I would include an explanation in the AFN, whether or not the funded status changes in a significant manner. It's like chicken soup.

Let me guess, there is an insurance agent involved?

Assuming you really mean "may", it might be prudent to eliminate any doubt first, then determine (at least approximately) how many $$ are understated. Only then would you then initiate any correction procedure.

Just guessing, it appears the original post is from someone working for a TPA. Whether from a TPA or a plan sponsor, I suggest you contact a pension actuary for some advice (ie, what Effen and Mike and jpod said is spot-on).

I think you can use any loss amortization procedure, as long as it provides the 10% corridor as a minimum. However, IMHO, changing to a different procedure is a change in accounting policy, and someone else has to pass judgement on that. BTW, I would be interested in hearing any comments about how the auditor feels about such change.

Um... follow the plan document?

Resurrecting this topic, https://www.plansponsor.com/erisa-not-preempt-state-slayer-laws/, this case seems to differ because of the insanity verdict. The court upheld the most common (I think) understanding/application of a “slayer statute”. However, I wonder if users have crafted plan language to deal with the potential of a slayer statute removing the surviving spouse (or anyone else) from benefiting under a plan? Although this discussion thread is posted in the 401(k) Forum, the potential certainly applies to any qualified plan. For example, many DB plans have only one pre-retirement death benefit: a QPSA “to the surviving spouse”; in such case, the plan has no authority to pay anyone else. Any thoughts?