Jump to content

david rigby

Mods
  • Posts

    9,188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    116

Everything posted by david rigby

  1. 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
  2. Have you asked your actuary this question? By the way, what is "AMT15"?
  3. 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.
  4. Only partially snarky: so what?
  5. 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?
  6. Pardon my ignorance: if they did not execute participation agreements for the "new companies", how is there a multiple-employer plan?
  7. 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?
  8. https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Announces-2016-Pension-Plan-Limitations;-401(k)-Contribution-Limit-Remains-Unchanged-at-$18,000-for-2016
  9. Never cheat! BTW, what does the plan's attorney say?
  10. Any precedent? BTW, if you are not the actuary, the plan's actuary should be involved in this discussion.
  11. AndyH, are you suggesting we should be wary of attorneys from Mass?
  12. News release last year was dated 10/23/14.
  13. The point of the 80-120 rule (see link above), is they may file whatever form they filed last year.
  14. You might have issues other than taxation, such as EE contributions toward medical coverage, LTD coverage, etc.
  15. Nope. See PBGC Blue Books. Q&As 2000-16 and 2007-05. http://www.pbgc.gov/prac/other-guidance/blue-books.html
  16. See page 8 of the 2014 instructions. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2014-5500inst.pdf
  17. I don't think so. You may wish to review regulation 1.410(d)-1
  18. The plan might define the death benefit in a way that includes the 415 limit.
  19. Maybe none? In general, the plan pays to those eligible who make a claim. As long as you aren't hiding, I suggest the plan does not have an obligation to seek out a potential beneficiary, especially when such potential beneficiary is not obvious.
  20. Is the PS contribution discretionary? If the ER, in its discretion, decides to make a zero PS contribution, is that a freeze? Put another way, what is the intent of the original question?
  21. It may be prudent to inquire about the source of this "life insurance" payment.
  22. Don't know how the DOL will treat the draft attachment. But it's probably not as bad as no attachment.
  23. If you create an interim valuation (or an estimate), isn't that a plan feature that is outside normal plan operation? You could: - segregate now, with no interim gain/loss, or - reply that the DRO is not a QDRO, since it requests something not in the plan. Any precedent?
  24. What is your relationship to the plan? to the Plan Administrator? Assuming it's only a typo, and you mean 401(k) plan, if you are the TPA, perhaps you will want to express an opinion and then back out, saying this is a job for the plan's ERISA counsel.
×
×
  • Create New...