david rigby

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.

Data as of 12/31/2015 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.04 4.04 Aa 4.21 4.23 4.22 A 4.41 4.46 4.44 Baa 5.58 5.42 5.50 Avg 4.73 4.54 4.64 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.53 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.01 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.76

Agreed, but does this imply/require a prior intent of confidentiality? Even if no prior intent (likely, most plan sponsors have never heard of 7525 and would not anticipate any level of confidentiality with the ERPA or EA), what if an IRS request arises later? Is there a requirement for the EA/ERPA to invoke the confidentiality relationship?

Peter, your explanation seems to coincide with IRC 7525. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7525 Do you have any comments about that section?

There may already be language that covers it, in a generic sense.

Yeah, what Kevin said. BTW, although probably not significant, the word "transfer" is technically incorrect. A better choice is "direct rollover" or "automatic rollover". (Not to be picky, but sometimes the correct terminology is important.)

Yes. The NC Bar was hearing a case on "unauthorized practice of law". There may be a detailed summary on their website; my recollection is that those people authorized to "practice" under ERISA (enrolled actuaries, accountants, attorneys, enrolled agents, etc.) are not in violation of the UPL statute as long as they stick to the ERISA matters. Don't assume this applies in any other jurisdiction.

Clarity needed. Are you referring to tax withholding at time of payment or to whether the pension is included in taxable income?

Not subject to QJSA by ERISA, but might be subject to those (or similar) rules by plan provision(s).

Seem possible that this CPA has other clients for whom the result is a 415 violation. Your best revenge could be to be the white knight, offering to help fix them. Eventually, the clients will probably drop the CPA, but keep you.

Oops, typo, fat fingers. Yes.

Perhaps I misunderstand the situation and/or desired result. 1. Suppose the 415 limit = 200K, and the accrued benefit = 201K. Result, can't pay more than 200K as life annuity. 2. Suppose the 50%J&S benefit is $201K reduced by 10% = ~ $181K. Result: the plan can pay the $190K J&S benefit. 3. Amend the plan (maybe?) to change the 50%J&S factor to 95%. Result: $201 x .95 = ~ $191K, still less than the 415 limit, so it can be paid. Is this what the sponsor is trying to accomplish? If so, the plan must be amended first.