david rigby

No, I've never heard of it. But, the plan provisions rule. Did the attorney identify the current restriction that must be amended?

From the EOB: "A plan has a plan year ending December 31. For the 2012 plan year, the determination date is 12/31/2011. To determine whether the plan is top-heavy, the account balances calculated as of the determination date include all catch-up contributions made for the 2011 plan year and for prior plan years. Since the top-heavy determination date is being made for the 2012 plan year, catch-up contributions made for the 2011 plan year are part of the catch-up contributions made for prior plan years, and so are included in the top-heavy ratio."

Touché. You are correct: should be FTAP rather than AFTAP (we put them both, if different).

Don't forget, while catch-ups aren't included in this year's analysis, next year they are part of the account balances, so they are included in subsequent TH analysis.

There might be some other reasons, such as: - Does a collective bargaining agreement have anything to say about it? (Obviously, not relevant in this case.) - Does a corporate loan covenant have anything to say about it? - Since the AFN contains the AFTAP, does the sponsoring ER want to make sure to communicate the AFTAP of at least X%?

Rather than "pretty sure", perhaps it would be prudent to verify this first. Many payroll systems include thresholds that limit deductions, as a method to avoid over-withholding. (Whether they work properly is another matter, but such system limits could be part of the problem.)

When in doubt about expense payments, the PA/fiduciary might wish to consider getting opinion of ERISA counsel.

Pardon my ignorance, just what is meant by "vendor"?

The purpose of any actuarial increase is to "make up" for the missed payments. Therefore, it should be based on the demographic data of the recipient.

The "...hurt participants..." reasoning is based on a stronger incentive for sponsors to freeze or terminate the plan.

I've seen examples of missing participants who will never be located because they have moved back to the country of origin. Since PBGC is not available, does this argue in favor of "forfeiting" the benefit (of course, with the promise of restoration it if the participant reappears)?

Strictly answering the questions posed in the original post: Yes and Yes. However, the assets in the plan's trust are owned by the plan, not by the plan sponsor, so corporate bankruptcy should not mean the plan assets are impaired.

IRC 414(p) does not contain the word "divorce" or the phrase "dissolution of marriage". Of course a QDRO can be issued if the parties are still married. However, in the case above, what is the reasoning for the parties to bear the cost of obtainging a QDRO, when the plan (as described above) does not care about "legal separation"? If the plan has no ambiguities, why fix something that isn't broken? BTW, in my state (NC), there is no definition of "legal separation".

No expert I, but might there be some "inexact" terminology? That is, what is meant by "survivor annuity"? Does it refer to something triggered upon death prior to retirement/commencement? Or triggered upon death after retirement/commencement? Perhaps your meaning of that phrase differs from the meaning used by the OPM? Just asking; make sure you start on the same page.

... and the lobbying effort has been pretty high. This is one recent letter https://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/pub/?id=7135af29-dd10-6e4f-6362-20d794d1329e

The spouse might also consider: 1. There will probably be a fee to effect this transfer/rollover. 2. There might be some positive diversification associated with leaving it alone (depending, of course on how it's currently invested and other investment offerings).

Has that been your experience reading posts here?

Well, you can amend a plan but you always have to be concerned with anti-cutback issues. If your proposed amendment would provide a LS basis on the 12/31/08 portion of the AccBen that is equal or greater than the current plan provision, then it would be permitted. However, it appears you are suggesting something else, so "What Mike said."

I agree, with the usual caveat: What does the plan say?

Have I missed something? Isn't there a need to inspect plan A to determine whether B employees are eligible automatically?

This is characteristic of most DB plans. Perhaps with a little more infop from the original poster, we can help.

Moody's Daily Bond Yields - Data as of 08/31/17 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.59 3.59 Aa 3.63 3.70 3.67 A 3.81 3.85 3.83 Baa 4.18 4.34 4.26 Avg 3.87 3.87 3.87 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.44 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.85 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.52

Yes of course, the sponsor should consider amending the plan for some better identification of procedure(s). But the current situation may demand an immediate action, and the committee is probably the vehicle to address the immediate need.

Absent any relevant plan provision, I agree that the logical "next in line" is the beneficiary's estate. However, if there is nothing on point in the plan, perhaps the committee (as defined in the plan) should create a "policy statement" prior to making the payment(s).

Just when you figured out how to navigate the old website, there is a new design, effective today, https://www.irs.gov/