david rigby

OK, I get it. Some circumstances make it worthwhile. Thnx.

Do you have a Summary Plan Description? (casually referred to as a "plan booklet")

OK, I ask to be instructed. How is it defined in the plan?

Don't do it, at least not into a DB plan.

Do you mean guaranteed payments from the LLC? Is this a death benefit (i.e., triggered only on the death of the employee/partner)?

Hey, I'm 42. Same as last year. You should try it.

Occasionally?

jpod is correct, there are two issues in the original post: 1. How to handle the 5-year rule, and what to do if it has been "violated". 2. The termination of the plan is/will be a distributable event. The Plan Administrator may wish to be a little creative in getting the beneficiary to respond (have you confirmed this person is still alive?), by sending certified mail. Such letter might strongly suggest the account will be distributed by X date. The PA might also consider how to proceed if no response is received: check? default IRA? etc.

Yep. https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2024-april-8 https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/best-cities-to-visit-next-solar-eclipse-2024

Technically, I think any change to plan year must be adopted prior to the new YE. If you have a YE 11/28/15, the next PY begins 11/29/15, no matter what is the PYE.

I just got back from driving to see totality. Awesome, glorious. All adjectives are inadequate. I totally geeked out. If you've never seen it, I urge you to begin planning for 2024.

FWIW, I've seen a non-PBGC plan use an owner waiver as if it was subject to PBGC rules.

BTW, consider that "earnings" is most often tracked as "net". That is, the fund has some investment return but it also might pay some expenses, so the net is considered "earnings to allocate".

Exactly! As a non-lawyer, I appreciate that the legal profession recognizes that real harm can come from non-lawyers pretending they know the law, and its consequences. In the same manner, I appreciate when other professionals acknowledge that actuaries have relevant training and experience that helps with other matters.

Since he contacted the PA just before 65, that might imply he knew all along that he was vested, and that he should apply for the benefit. If you take that approach, it may be possible to ignore any retroactive commencement date. However, as stated above, get ERISA counsel to opine.

Maybe. The mailing was sent incorrectly, but the correct address had been provided. Note the original post states "...it took weeks...", different from the "...two weeks..." in another post. From the facts given, we don't know how much delay applies in this case. If the AP feels he/she has a legitimate complaint, then he/she should use the plan's claim/appeal procedures. The PA should consider whether the "...AP is asserting..." may have already begun such appeal procedures.

MoJo, should such contact be initiated by his (ESOP-fluent) attorney?

I think TEL is making the distinction between charging it to the Plan vs. charging it to the participant.

Read the Summary Plan Description (shorthand SPD) for your husband's plan.

Lot's more information needed, but the most important information is: "what does the QDRO say?" Note (1) survivor benefits might have its own set of provisions; (2) a QDRO might award more than (or less than) X% of the benefit earned (i.e. at 2006 in your example) because the QDRO award can be part of the "horse-trading" in any divorce/property settlement. Can she (first wife) collect benefits at 59-1/2? Maybe, depends on the terms of the plan document and the QDRO. BTW, your Q implies this is a defined benefit plan rather than a defined contribution plan; the distinction is important, but just my assumption, so far.

Well, sort of. It's not quite that simple, since any debris (eg, graphite, shavings) can be dangerous in space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_in_space

Thanks, Dave. Flexibility is nice, and I can see how some users will prefer this alternative. For me, I'll probably use the default mode.

There might be some corollary issues to address first. What is the nature of "...failed to put retirees in pay status..."? Do these retirees know something is missing? Should the PA be discussing fiduciary liability with its ERISA attorney? Why a lump sum rate? Are you trying to identify how to make up for overlooked annuity payments? Is there an administrative precedent? What does the plan say about RASD?

Reconsidering the original press release, that $70 million cost seems so breathtakingly large as to be doubtful. My hunch is someone arrived at that number by including extra costs unrelated to the program (such as, the full cost of employee X when that employee only spent 20% of his/her time on the program). I don't have any real data to support this (which is why it's a hunch), just observing that stretching the truth is not uncommon in DC.

I'm wondering about the communication. Telling the employee base that "...anyone earning W-2 compensation of less than "X" is excluded", is not a pleasant message. (BTW, you don't know W2 comp until the end of the year, so that looks like a message of ambiguity, at least for some.) Seems like you would want to use some type of job classification. Or is this irrelevant?