david rigby

OK. IMHO, the proposed condition is likely to be irrelevant, in which case I suggest there is no "significant detriment". I base my conclusion on experience with many ERWs, where everyone elected an immediate commencement date. Others may have different experience. Caveat: I've seen a ERW in a government plan with some different wrinkles, but not covered by ERISA.

... but "official guidance" from the government might be different. Old story: a famous actuarial professor told his students of his testimony before a state legislature that was considering a bill that defines Pi as 3.0. Fortunately, they took his advice.

Is the ER concerned about the ERF? Many DB plans that offer early retirement use an early reduction factor that provides some subsidy (perhaps small), as compared to a true actuarial equivalent reduction. If so, that means the employee who defers receipt until 65 will forego some or all of that subsidy. The net result is that the employer's proposed condition will cost the plan more.

Likely, his age at the time of working 1000 hours is not relevant. If he reaches a (possible) entry date and has met both of the age and service conditions at anytime during employment, then he should become a participant on that entry date, not the next one.

Is this the net effect: invest in a product that mirrors the crediting rate, without regard to whether that investment has higher net admin costs/fees?

What does the plan say?

I vote for option #2. BTW, are there excess assets? If so, be careful what you do with them? If any amount is allocated to participant(s), don't forget about 415 limitation.

Seen it. Done it. IMHO, you can amend the plan to increase the allocation of excess to participants at any time prior to actual distribution. Note, this might mean you have to produce two checks to everyone, so there is additional administrative cost. Be very careful if there are retirees getting an annuity. If the plan purchased a commercial annuity for the retiree, you may be going back to the same insurer and asking if you can give them more money to provide a higher benefit, but it's likely the (monthly) benefit will not increase in the same proportion. Advance discussion of this possibility is important.

Generally, that is determined by the precise terms of the plan amendment.

Some people think "advice" from Sal Tripodi trumps advice from anyone else.

The ER might consider that the EE could claim he is an active employee due to the ER's treatment of "severance" payments, and might also demand coverage under other benefits provided to active employees.

If not already done, put this in writing, probably outlining the facts in the original post, to both parties.

Based on the facts presented, this is a no-brainer: you met the conditions specified in the plan. If someone is stating otherwise, ask (in writing), and get a written response.

Yes.

Yes. The exemption in 436(d)(4) applies to only one of the possible limitations of 436. IRC 436(a) requires compliance with subsections (b), ©, (d), and (e).

Yes, but 436(d)(4) refers to "this subsection", which is a reference to 436(d), not to 436. Also, pay attention to the phrase about "...no benefit accruals..."

Not answering your question, just a warning: To change a plan year, the amendment/resolution/etc. must be signed on or before the end of the (new) short year. If your resolution was signed after 10/31/15, oops.

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.