Jump to content

david rigby

Mods
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,127

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    107

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums (Message Boards)

Everything posted by david rigby

  1. david rigby
    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.
  2. david rigby
    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.
  3. david rigby
    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.
  4. david rigby
    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.
  5. david rigby
    Let me guess, there is an insurance agent involved?
  6. david rigby
    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.
  7. david rigby
  8. david rigby
    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).
  9. david rigby
    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.
  10. david rigby
    Um... follow the plan document?
  11. david rigby
    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?
  12. david rigby
    Maybe the post refers to a QDRO where one or both spouses are covered by a plan that covers federal employees? It seems likely the answer to the original Q is to return to court; only the judge can change the judge's order.
  13. david rigby
    I'm wondering if this implies the plan had other assets sometime in the past. If so, what happened? Oh, we're back to the fiduciary liability question.
  14. david rigby
    IMHO, not filing on time because "the auditor attachment is not ready" is a terrible reason to be late.
  15. david rigby
    Data as of 02/28/2018 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.84 3.84 Aa 3.97 3.98 3.98 A 4.10 4.12 4.11 Baa 4.45 4.65 4.55 Avg 4.17 4.15 4.16 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs.) 2.32 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs.) 2.70 Long-Term (10+ yrs.) 3.04
  16. david rigby
    Do you have access to the Gray Book? There are several post-PPA Q&As related to "spin-off". For example, 2012-12, attached. In addition, see IRS §1.430(g)-1(c). Might be other references. 2012_Gray_Book_QA2012.12.pdf
  17. david rigby
    Plural?
  18. david rigby
    Correct. BTW, you start a paragraph with, "The way to potentially avoid...". When you hire a pension actuary, you will learn that is not the only way to "avoid".
  19. david rigby
    It's probably in the SPD also.
  20. david rigby
    IMHO, it's not about the DOL, it's about the courts. But maybe that's just me.
  21. david rigby
    A new demographic category.
  22. david rigby
    Your question(s) may need a bit more "precision". Perhaps they have been addressed previously. You can go to this page: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/forum/10-church-plans/ and use the "Search". For example, this discussion is 15 years old: https://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/13239-how-does-a-pastors-housing-allowance-affect-the-definition-of-compensa/&tab=comments#comment-68461
  23. david rigby
    Exactly. It is fairly common for distributions to be made when information is available (eg, because some participants make an election sooner than others). The original post implies something else, such as intentionally delaying distributions for a group of participants. Is there something else going on?
  24. david rigby
    I once tried to find the origin of the "high-25" rule in Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-5(b)(3). Unfortunately, I can no longer find that research, but I recall it dates to a 1950's regulatory pronouncement (although not necessarily a formal regulation). To the best of my knowledge, it has never existed in any statute. Since it pre-dates ERISA and the (a)(4) regs by many(!) years, perhaps it should not exist. Does any of the "removal" affect this? Or have I overlooked something?
  25. david rigby
    QDROphile is correct. Here is an earlier discussion about the "sham divorce".
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

  I accept