david rigby

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?

Are the children minors? (Don't know if it's relevant. Just asking.)

Moody's Daily Bond Yields Data as of 07/31/17 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.68 3.68 Aa 3.80 3.79 3.80 A 3.97 3.95 3.96 Baa 4.33 4.39 4.36 Avg 4.03 3.95 3.99 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.54 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.01 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.71

Perhaps this statement from the press release is the most alarming aspect to this program.

I don't know the answer to the original question, but my hunch is the total income appears to have been reported correctly, but not under the correct SSN. Due to nature of the 100% J&S, one might be tempted to suggest that the IRS has experienced no "harm", so just fix the problem going forward; however, I'm not going to suggest it, since other facts may be relevant: (1) did the death get reported on the next 1040 filing? (2) did the husband accept the income and also continue filing jointly each year (i.e., fraud)? (3) did the spouse remarry? (4) other facts relevant to the spouse's tax filing? (5) etc. Someone needs a tax advisor to ask all these questions, and that someone is not the plan administrator. However, the PA needs advice on whether it should issue revised 1099's. Back to the original question: "how you handle late reported deaths concerning 1099-R tax reporting?" The answer may depend on who is asking: (a) are you representing the payor or the PA, and now you are trying to get the payments and 1099 correct? (b) are you the tax advisor for the spouse? (c) etc. I would be shocked if the IRS has not experienced this exact fact pattern, and already has the answer. Perhaps there is a vehicle for asking this question directly, or the aforementioned tax advisor also knows.

My first question is whether the spouse/beneficiary has committed fraud. But perhaps you've already gotten past this?

Derrin Watson has offered this: https://benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi?db=qa_who_is_employer&id=346

Now that is something useful.

Actuarial vendor performs the annual actuarial valuation for a DB plan, and delivers the report to the sponsoring employer (i.e., the PA). Actuarial vendor then sends its invoice for services rendered. The plan provisions have always permitted the plan to pay reasonable expenses if not paid by the sponsor. "The trust fund shall be used for the exclusive benefit of the participants and their beneficiaries and to pay administrative expenses of the plan and trust to the extent not paid by the Hospital." In prior years, the sponsor has elected to have the plan pay some expenses, including fees from the actuary, but not necessarily the same each year. In some years the plan has paid expense X, Y, and Z, while in other years the plan has paid expense X and Y. For the current invoice, the sponsor does not pay promptly, nor is the invoice paid by the plan. A few months later, the sponsor declares chapter 11 bankruptcy. The sponsor also files for a PBGC distress termination (without involvement of this actuary). Sponsor refuses to pay the actuary's invoice, and refuses to send the invoice to the plan trustee for payment. Bankruptcy attorney says, “get in line, like everyone else”. Research includes ERISA sections 403 and 404, and DOL Advisory Opinion 2001-01A, Distress Termination instructions. Nothing appears to restrict the payment of reasonable administrative expenses in the event of bankruptcy. My view is that plan provisions require the sponsor to direct payment from the trust since the sponsor has not made the payment, but I’m willing to consider other viewpoints. Any comments or experience that you are willing to share?

it depends on plan provisions. check the summary plan description.

Non-lawyer question: would you have acted and/or "cautioned" any differently if the plan and/or plan sponsor was not involved? If so, how?

The original poster might get some value by searching the Message Boards using the term "estate"

Blazing Saddles was a brilliant parody of many other movies. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) is the origin of that line. Give credit where credit is due. (BTW, it's a very good movie.)

Any other states with similar provisions?

What a nice guy.

Reading between the lines of Albany Consultant's second post, it seems the "client" and the participant might be identical. If this is a "family business", the mother may feel she is part of that, whether or not she is/was an employee. Nevertheless, this problem does not belong to the Plan, or to the PA. or to Albany Consultant, but is a conversation between the participant and his mother.

Is this a good idea? Likely, that question cannot be answered here, but some considerations that might be relevant: - what is the interest rate differential of keeping the loan vs. borrowing elsewhere? - what is the likelihood that you will remain with this employer until the loan is paid off in 2030? - what are the provisions for extinguishing the loan if you leave employment? (Likely, your loan agreement already spells this out.)

I'm hoping this oxymoronic phrase dies as quickly as possible.

1. No. 2. The plan cannot offer in-service distributions to a participant under NRA. 3. By "former participant", you probably mean "former employee". In that case, the participant is a VT, but also happens to be eligible to elect commencement prior to NRA. However, eligibility at separation of employment is important: the plan might not provide the same ER subsidy to a participant who terminates employment prior to becoming eligible for ER as to a participant who terminates employment after becoming eligible for ER.

Most people I know are reluctant to give bad news to Mom. As described above, the participant should be off the hook, because he can now tell Mom: "there is no choice; the plan rules are the plan rules."

Duplicate post. Responses are here:

Terminating? Merger? Usually those mean different things. Which do you mean? I can provide my 5500 experience with a DB merger: plan document(s) stated merger was effective 12/31/08; the surviving plan 5500 showed the combined plan participant count and assets at EOY; the plan non-surviving plan showed "final filing" and zero participant count and zero assets at EOY. Result: happy auditor, and no IRS/DOL questions.

To save money? Got context?

Pain in the ass.

I've followed this pattern before: allocate the excess pro-rata on PVAB of the "base" portion of the benefit. Other allocations may also be valid.