david rigby

Find a partner with TPA experience.

Exactly my point. In the past, the IRS has made official statements. Why nothing here?

IMHO, parts of 2000-40 still apply, because there is no official statement (that I can remember) from IRS otherwise. However, I agree that it's not worth the risk. As AndyH implies,we expect some more guidance "soon". As far as post-PPA permission to change, I think that expired in 2010.

Don't forget to read the plan provisions. It may be imprudent to assume the Plan Administrator has unlimited authority. Note: if Company A is involved, it may have to first document (1) it is the PA, and (2) the relevant plan provisions and claim procedures (and maybe relevant IRS statements), and (3) etc.

1. Probably OK. Nothing in the reg that implies both reductions must be equal or proportionate. 2. Although not PBGC-covered, the plan may already have an allocation procedure, to be followed.

Data as of 01/29/2016 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.05 4.05 Aa 4.04 4.16 4.10 A 4.19 4.43 4.31 Baa 5.40 5.44 5.42 Avg 4.54 4.52 4.53 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.13 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.60 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.46

Good question. PBGC instructions here: http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/500-instructions.pdf. See page 23. A majority owner may "...elect to forego receipt of all or part..." Neither this paragraph nor the referenced regulation contains any restrictions on a majority owner who may be in-pay status. Note important discussion about spouse consent.

Is the plan terminated (under its own terms) upon the death?

Might depend on what your role is. See IRC 416.

http://www.actuary.org/files/EAR_Winter2015.pdf

Yes it would be nice. However, the current IRS philosophy is "do less with less", so it probably won't happen.

See IRC 408(d)(3).

I assume you are the TPA and/or record-keeper. It also appears this is a DC plan. Correct? Be careful about taking instructions from the CPA. It's unclear that person has any standing to give instructions. And be careful to follow the plan document w/r/t who and where a distribution is made.

Check out the Revenue Ruilings page at https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Revenue-Rulings-3. The SSTWB was the same for 2009 thru 2011, and the Cov. Comp table for 2011 appears to be identical to 2009. There is no corresponding table or Rev. Ruling for 2010.

Very likely, yes. Such payment would create additional experience loss that must be amortized. Plus, the issue raised by My2Cents about whether such plan change may be extended to other participants.

Might not be relevant. Check the definition of beneficiary in the plan document. Most documents have a hierarchy (for example, spouse first, if no spouse then children, if no children, then siblings, etc.) Often such definitions use "participant's estate" as the last option. It's possible this sister could be beneficiary of both (plan and estate), but it might be easier if she fits the plan's definition first.

If the plan's are merged, does that not change "ownership" of the assets from the disappearing plan? Location of the assets is not as important as which plan owns them.

I'm aware of several such employers that cover Board members under (substantially) the same medical benefits as provided to employees. Life insurance coverage also. To the best of my knowledge, this does not extend to any type of retirement plan, but I cannot say for sure.

With respect to the J&S rules, IRS regulation 1.401(a)-20, Q&A28 is very clear that a pre-nup does not satisfy any consent requirements under IRC 411 and/or 417.

Participant count is important, not employee count. Once you've identified participants, then the VRP is based on the vested portion of the total liability. The Base premium is based on total participants. Instructions here: http://www.pbgc.gov/prac/prem/premium-payment-instructions-and-addresses.html

No, the plan cannot continue indefinitely without a sponsor. A "closed business" (assuming no successor company that may become the sponsor) may automatically (under the terms of the plan) create a plan termination. If so, and you should check carefully, that means the plan terms that define/describe plan termination are now in play.

Go to this link: http://benefitslink.com/boards/ Then find the "forum" that best fits your topic. Click it. Then click "Start New Topic". Don't forget to use a title as well as the message/question.

Does the sponsoring company survive? If not, is there a possibility that the plan document is automatically terminated? If the plan provisions include that requirement, that implies the spouse must take a distribution. But check carefully.

Maybe it's just me, but reading "IRS" and "fulfillment" in the same sentence is amusing.

Regardless of identifying "fault", this screams for better controls in daily administration.