david rigby

Let's assume the reference to $5,000 is for the entire plan, or is there a typo? If $5,000 is correct, then context is needed: does the plan have 10 participants? 100? 1,000? As stated above, the fiduciaries are responsible for determining if all fees are reasonable, including both the $5,000 and the 50 basis points.

Not enough information. Many issues to explore in a merger or an asset purchase. Should include who is affected, who isn't. Whether the "new" employees must meet any conditions. Vesting. Any unions involved? Coordinate with any other benefit programs (this one is often overlooked). The list goes on. An experienced retirement consultant might be important. You might need an ERISA attorney.

Here is a lively discussion from July 2014: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/55910-benefit-accrual-different-methods/

Perhaps the IRA owner, and anyone else observing this situation, will think twice about the questionable control procedures here.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the only reg under 412(i), issued in 1980: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title26-vol7/pdf/CFR-2015-title26-vol7-sec1-412i-1.pdf Note: 412i was given a new designation in PPA, as 412(e)(3), effective in 2008, although the phrase "412i" persists.

Anything wrong with using "the pay period beginning after hire date"?

Is this account payable in cash? If so, why not just take it himself and make sure whatever portion he pays to ex-wife is categorized as alimony? That transfers the taxation (OK, the income tax but not the FICA tax) to her. It also helps him keep it if he outlives her. (ie, don't try to overcomplicate it) But hey, I'm no expert on divorce matters.

It's possible this is why he wants an in-service distribution.

Now that has the makings of a TV movie!

Agree with mbozek's comments. You will be able to find an actuary willing to accept this assignment, but not one who thinks that investing in RE is a good idea. If it were I, the fee would be a bit higher than usual. I'm skeptical that they understand the cash contribution issue(s). If I were a cynic, I might consider the possibility of some "nefarious" scheme to seek some tax-favored treatment of current RE investments. BTW, do the principals assume a distribution (i.e., at retirement) would be made in-kind? To an IRA custodian that will accept RE? Also very skeptical that the principals care about IRS audit/scrutiny, probably assuming no one will ever look at it. It would shock me if such an individually designed plan were ever submitted for a D-letter.

Sounds good to me Dave. I especially like your "see also" as a great way to alert the occasional user about alternative Boards. One possible enhancement to consider: a "warning message" (perhaps just under the Search box) to advise users that similar Q&As might appear on multiple Boards. Thanks.

Data as of 31-Jul-15 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.07 4.07 Aa 4.18 4.11 4.15 A 4.30 4.40 4.35 Baa 5.16 5.11 5.14 Avg 4.55 4.42 4.49 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.27 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.84 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.67

Anti-cutback issues apply to benefits already accrued (earned), rather than to employees/participants.

If the TPA has a service agreement with the plan/sponsor, that agreement may (likely?) prohibit the TPA from divulging any such information, even if all or a portion is public knowledge.

I've seen a few sponsors who don't want to file the extension form for fear that it's "one more thing that could trigger an audit". I'm not accusing them of being paranoid; just sayin'. (I'm pretty sure the IRS has said, point blank, that such filing will not in any way influence the occurrence of an audit.)

Assuming the original poster is the plan's TPA, the advice in posts 7 and 8 seems appropriate. However, the TPA still has to observe proper procedures. Likely, that includes "taking orders" only from certain people, which may include legal counsel for the plan. The TPA may have observed (correctly) a criminal act, but that does not give the TPA authority to act outside its procedures. Perhaps the TPA will get advice from its own legal counsel.

Just requesting clarification: transfer or distribution upon plan termination?

Perhaps I misunderstand the discussion about address. Do you have a valid address? If the address is know to be invalid, it seems fruitless to mail anything.

Instructions can be found here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html

I can think of (at least) two ways to interpret the phrase (original post) "...paying phony compensation...". In the interest of clarity, can you define what you mean?

Just so we understand all sides of this issue, I wonder if you can obtain, and post, the reasoning alluded to in the original post.

Also, consider that those who are willing to abuse (some might be eager to abuse, not just "bend" the rules) may now see an incentive to drop the vanilla prototype and use an individually designed plan. The vast majority of these will be below the audit threshold, so there will be less protection for the rank and file employees. If you think this isn't going to happen, then I might have some south Florida land to sell you. Future internet searches will find this message as an early warning. I'm just sayin'.

Required? By whom? For what purpose? In the past, restated documents were to make it easier on IRS reviewers. Seriously, your desire for a clean document is great, but I foresee that problem getting worse. And more abuse. And more outright discrimination. Since a DL is never required, those who want to abuse will be (essentially) given a green light to proceed.

Market-based or not, it's likely the compensation of the former owner is governed by (or at least influenced by) a contract/employment agreement.

Not accusing anyone of "fibbing", but my spidey-sense tells me to be skeptical that the agent ever talked to the legal department. Aside from the comments in Post #2, there is also the question of whether the DB plan should have any life insurance. This is not an academic question, and deserves an answer.