david rigby

Another key advantage of a QDRO: it's the legal exception to the anti-alienation clause of IRC 401(a)(13).

Have you reviewed this information? http://www.pbgc.gov/prac/terminations/missing-participants.html If you have no SSN (which I find a little difficult to believe), perhaps your search should include relatives and former co-workers.

Similar prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/58954-open-enrollment-special-enrollment/

Help us out please. Why is this not a problem?

Does the SPD include a generic discussion of a QDRO? Has the PA pointed the participant to that section of the SPD? Why would the participant pay an attorney to draft a "petition" but not be willing to pursue the existing legal avenue of a QDRO?

...or "to them".

Probably, the 5310 will show assets including whatever contribution is necessary for Standard Termination. See the line for "Receivable Employer contribution". Then, at a later date, the owner will document his/her action to forego a portion of his/her benefit. On its face, this will reduce the amount of receivable contribution. BTW, there might be legitimate reasons why an owner may want to "fund it up", even though such funding might affect only the owner's benefit.

Probably. Search the PBGC instructions for "owner". http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/500-instructions.pdf BTW, you will not find the word "waive". They use "forego". Be sure to have this discussion with the plan's actuary.

Data as of 04/29/216 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.63 3.63 Aa 3.67 3.67 3.67 A 3.99 3.89 3.94 Baa 4.66 4.72 4.69 Avg 4.11 3.98 4.05 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs.) 1.10 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs.) 1.52 Long-Term (10+ yrs.) 2.36

Agree. Both old ER and new ER did a poor job of communicating, but poor communication is not the same as "trying to pull a fast one". However, going forward, read all communication materials carefully, and ask questions if you don't understand.

Regulation by memo. Shameful.

Sure. Likely, related to some (very) bad asset experience. For example, - A large portion of the assets took a sudden (unanticipated) nose-dive. - The liquid assets went down but the illiquid assets could not be converted to cash easily enough (or soon enough) to meet the payment date.

What does this mean? A plan must have a sponsor. If the sponsor no longer exists, the plan provisions may automatically terminate it.

Defined benefit plan is offering a temporary lump sum window to VT participants. The sponsor's DC plan accepts a direct rollover for an active employee. 1. Can the DC plan be amended to permit a direct rollover from a VT participant, when the DC account for this person is currently zero? 2. Same as (1), but assume the DC account is currently non-zero? (Of course, proposed action is non-discriminatory and would apply to any such VT, without regard to HCE or NHCE.)

I think either definition in the original post is possible. Likely, no one can definitively answer your question without the actual plan language (or maybe the SPD). If neither is available (and you should not assume the answer is NO without some realistic investigation), the next step might be to ask if there is any precedent. If that fails, you may default to the ERISA principal of deciding ambiguous questions in favor of the participant.

Dividends are dividends. See post #2. If LT and/or ST capital gain from mutual funds, it should be included in 2b(10). If LT and/or ST capital gain from something other than mutual funds, it should be included on the appropriate line, such as 2b(4), or 2b(6), or 2b(7), etc. In general, LT and/or ST capital gain is realized appreciation. It should not be included in the unrealized appreciation of 2b(5).

No expert am I. Since the trust is the entity that (eventually) makes a payment (and possibly does tax withholding), shouldn't it have a unique EIN/TN? A 1099-R makes more sense if it shows the name and EIN of the payor, rather than the plan sponsor or the bank that holds the money, etc.

I think the sponsor must first address the second and third "If..." sentences in Post #2, in light of what was intended. My reference to "prospective" is that the sponsor should then amend the plan to incorporate the intent, for any future new hires.

.... but the document might not say what was intended, in which case the principal(s) should consider a prospective amendment to clear up the confusion.

In my observation, it's likely the only detail communicated is the size of the PS contribution.

If we assume the attorney(s) have ruled out any possibility that this EE is not a "specified employee", the comment above from jpod is good advice. If the ER elects to increase the ER's comp by $75K, that (probably) won't have any impact on the SERP itself, which leads to the possibility that the ER might have to pay it twice.

Does the plan document allow Plan Administrator discretion to exclude HCEs? In other words, follow the document. If necessary, amend it.

I have no idea about the "for and against", but the word "persuades" stands out like a sore thumb. Who determines? Open to abuse? What if A persuades B, while simultaneously B persuades A? Any requirement that the "persuader" already be making contributions? What if a contributing EE stops, and one month later is "persuaded" to start again? And again?

Prior discussion here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/52072-2011-contribution-deadline-91512-or-91712/ ..but let's not beat that dead horse again.

Get the boss of the "HR person" on the phone, and say the words "fiduciary violation" slowly and clearly.