david rigby

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".

https://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Announces-2016-Pension-Plan-Limitations;-401(k)-Contribution-Limit-Remains-Unchanged-at-$18,000-for-2016

Never cheat! BTW, what does the plan's attorney say?

Any precedent? BTW, if you are not the actuary, the plan's actuary should be involved in this discussion.

AndyH, are you suggesting we should be wary of attorneys from Mass?

News release last year was dated 10/23/14.

The point of the 80-120 rule (see link above), is they may file whatever form they filed last year.

You might have issues other than taxation, such as EE contributions toward medical coverage, LTD coverage, etc.

Nope. See PBGC Blue Books. Q&As 2000-16 and 2007-05. http://www.pbgc.gov/prac/other-guidance/blue-books.html