Jump to content

david rigby

Mods
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,141

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums (Message Boards)

Everything posted by david rigby

  1. david rigby
    mbozek is correct. All you have now is an alleged "period of non-compliance". No one can begin to fix the problem (if there is one) until the problem (and its duration) is identified. If you are a participant and have no plan administrative responsibility, perhaps you might direct those responsible to this discussion thread so he/she/they can take action. If the Plan needs referrals to attorneys in your area, I (and several other contributors here) can provide a few names.
  2. david rigby
    The auditor's opinion might be important, but qualification status is not determined by the auditor. I agree with mbozek's comment to check out the VCP program. But get thee to an experienced ERISA attorney first.
  3. david rigby
    Perhaps it is clear elsewhere, but this does not make sense. A plan cannot both terminate and merge.
  4. david rigby
    My bookshelf contains "Pension Planning" and "Fundamentals of Private Pensions". Both are important. I have no idea what the most recent editions are. However, understanding today's environment will necessarily include at least some historical view, so don't avoid the history of any text.
  5. david rigby
    A simple beginning is to use the Search feature on these Boards. Use the word rental.
  6. david rigby
    Well, Hattie Greenan, even though you are a trade group, this sounds like marketing. If not, please enlighten the readers.
  7. david rigby
    A partial termination is (generally) a facts and circumstances test. - First, the IRS presumes all terminations during the appropriate time frame are subject to the deemed vesting requirement. - Second, the plan sponsor has the ability to document other facts that might exclude some of those terminations. For example, an employee who died (but this might trigger 100% vesting anyway). Your "event" need not be retroactive to the beginning of the year (and could even extend into a subsequent PY).
  8. david rigby
    Is there a question?
  9. david rigby
    Q&A 10?
  10. david rigby
    You might have some pushback over 21 vs. 18. Married? Was the plan drafted by an experienced attorney?
  11. david rigby
    IMHO, the context is meaningful only if referring to the child at the time of participant's death?
  12. 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.
  13. david rigby
    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.
  14. david rigby
    Here is a lively discussion from July 2014: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/55910-benefit-accrual-different-methods/
  15. david rigby
    Perhaps the IRA owner, and anyone else observing this situation, will think twice about the questionable control procedures here.
  16. david rigby
    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.
  17. david rigby
    Anything wrong with using "the pay period beginning after hire date"?
  18. david rigby
    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.
  19. david rigby
    It's possible this is why he wants an in-service distribution.
  20. david rigby
    Now that has the makings of a TV movie!
  21. david rigby
    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.
  22. david rigby
    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.
  23. david rigby
    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
  24. david rigby
    Anti-cutback issues apply to benefits already accrued (earned), rather than to employees/participants.
  25. david rigby
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

  I accept