david rigby

I was a "tag-along" to an attorney discussion on a similar topic last year. I'm summarizing here: the attorneys referenced PTE 80-26 and an article written by the Groom law firm. The focus was on (1) what does the plan say, and (2) whether there was a de facto loan between the parties (ie, the plan and the sponsor). The conclusion reached was, "If there is a chance that the employer advances will not be reimbursed within 60 days, a written, no-interest loan agreement is required between the employer and the plan." If your prior expense is more than 60 days old, you may have a problem with the plan making that reimbursement, especially if there is nothing implying the plan will make a reimbursement (possibility under certain conditions). It's prudent to get the auditor's input, in advance.

If the check was made out to the plan (and if that is correct), then 100% of the $8000 belongs to the plan.

Check the document. I've seen plans that state the plan is automatically terminated if ... Although "bankruptcy" has not been mentioned, other conditions might apply.

There is an Ethics webcast by the Conference of Consulting Actuaries, Wednesday December 2. www.ccactuaries.org

Probably, you should address this question to the IRA custodian, in advance.

When is the plan termination date?

I don't see sinister motives, just simple: Save some budget $$.

It's cash. IMHO, the term "fringe benefit" was originally created to cover things that are not cash.

What does the plan say?

Can a sole proprietorship be presumed to be in existence at an earlier date? If so, does the presumption require any evidence?

Reasonable query. Peter, can you suggest an example where this would be legitimate? What "other EE-benefit purpose" would be acceptable? Are there parameters where the test of legitimacy would clearly fail? (I'm not asking for free legal advice, just looking for some generalities that can be a discussion basis.)

If rolled out, that implies the money is now in an IRA. IRA rules, not plan rules, will apply. Is there some way in which her company employment/termination is relevant?

Data as of 30-Oct-15 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.98 3.98 Aa 4.14 4.13 4.14 A 4.32 4.38 4.35 Baa 5.47 5.23 5.35 Avg 4.64 4.43 4.54 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.24 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.82 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.66

No where in the original post is the word "plan". Is this an ESOP?

T-H rules provide minimums (benefit, vesting). If the plan is more generous than the minimum, then it automatically satisfies T-H. Don't worry, be happy. BTW, I think that all plans must include T-H language even if all other plan provisions provide something better. (am I remembering that correctly?)

Likely, this question has been answered (in the negative) sometime in the past when another EE changed positions. QDROphile is correct.

You've probably heard me say it before: there is no insurable interest.

This attachment is from a discussion draft dated 10/26/15. Apparently, the ability to count PBGC premiums as "general revenue" is so attractive to Congress that they will continue to abuse sponsors of DB plans. Proposed Budget 10.26.15.pdf

Have you asked your actuary this question? By the way, what is "AMT15"?

Why? could be lots of reasons. My hunch: it's a way to avoid most audits, by requiring the submission of information that would be requested in any audit.

Only partially snarky: so what?

BTW, the reference to "...100% vested in 3 years..." implies a cash balance design. Is that correct? Any other participants? Is the sponsor trying to postpone the RMD as long as possible?

Pardon my ignorance: if they did not execute participation agreements for the "new companies", how is there a multiple-employer plan?

In this context, does "advisor" mean someone involved in the asset investments? someone who gets a higher compensation/commission/etc. when the plan assets are larger?

Think "intranet".