david rigby

By the way, there have been some similar discussions; here is one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/50724-overpayment/

Request documentation of the nature of the overpayment, not just the amount. In writing. From the ER, not from you IRA holder.

BTW, what is the goal? If the ER wants to offer a temporary window with a lump sum option, that can be done without making it a permanent feature of the plan. As before, discuss with your EA.

With respect to the orginal question, this is the essential information. However, that may overlook the larger question: is this a good thing to do? As discussed, it will lead to a funding loss, and corresponding amortization. It could also affect the audit requirement. Discuss these issues with your EA.

BTW, I've done this, with the "deceased" plan Form 5500 showing zero participants and zero assets at EOY. The auditor loved that approach.

I disagree. The trust and the plan are not the same thing. IMHO, there is no "transfer in transit", since any plan can have assets in more than one place. Maybe it's just me.

If the merger is 12/31/14, A "owns" all the assets at that date, so the Plan A Schedule H (assuming that is the relevant form) at 12/31/14 will show all the assets, and the Plan B Schedule H will show ending assets of zero. But perhaps I misunderstand your question.

I thought the "lost interest" portion of the title meant something else.

FAB 2013-1 and 2015-1 http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fabmain.html

This is the referenced discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/57386-weird-qdro-question/

Esssntially identical questions (related only to QDRO expenses) were posed to the DOL and IRS for the 2013 Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Responses below (the copyright applies to both). I'm not claiming this is a regulatory statement, just take it as you wish. DOL Green Book QUESTION 2013-7 Fiduciary: QDROs: Charging Participants with QDRO Expenses in a DB Plan Advisory Opinion 94-32A originally provided that participants can’t be charged for QDRO administration. However, subsequently released FAB 2003-3 provides that QDRO processing fees can be charged against a DC plan account (if permitted by the plan), and the FAQs on the DOL website reiterate this position. However neither FAB 2003-3 nor the FAQs address reduction of DB plan benefits to cover QDRO administration, or payment by the participant of QDRO administration fees outside the plan. a) Can a DB plan reduce accrued benefits to cover QDRO administration fees? b) Can a DB plan require a participant to directly (i.e., outside the plan) pay fees for QDRO administration? EBSA STAFF RESPONSE The first question relating to reduction of accrued benefits is within the jurisdiction of the IRS (see 2013 Gray Book Q&A 42). Staff does not believe this to be the appropriate forum in which to answer the second question. IRS Gray Book QUESTION 2013-42 Other DB Plan Issues: Charging Participants with QDRO Expenses in a DB Plan DOL Advisory Opinion 94-32A originally provided that participants can’t be charged for QDRO administration. However, subsequently released DOL FAB 2003-3 provides that QDRO processing fees can be charged against a DC plan account (if permitted by the plan), and the FAQs on the DOL website reiterate this position. However, neither FAB 2003-3 nor the FAQs address reduction of DB plan benefits to cover QDRO administration, or payment by the participant of QDRO administration fees outside the plan. a) Can a DB plan reduce accrued benefits to cover QDRO administration fees? b) Can a DB plan require a participant to directly (i.e., outside the plan) pay fees for QDRO administration? RESPONSE a) No. The proposed hybrid regulation specifically notes that the plan cannot reduce the account balance for administrative expenses and we would not expect to condone a different result for other types of formulas. b) This question should be addressed to the DOL. However, we note that even if it were acceptable to require payment from the employee, given that the plan administrator cannot use a charge against the accrued benefit as a fall back position and given that the plan administrator cannot refuse to process the QDRO, charging the participant for the work appears to be problematic. Copyright © 2013, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the CD-ROM for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

Yep. However, when the CB plan is overfunded, it may be legitimate to pass certain expenses to the Plan.

... and the birth anniversary of Igor Stravinsky.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/57455-allocation-based-on-years-of-service/

Isn't it a merger or a termination? Not both?

..., and (if there are other participants in the plan), make sure any such amendment is not discriminatory.

"...allows early retirement..." should also include a definition of "retirement". Likely, merely attaining ER eligibility (as measured by age/service) is not the same thing as actually retiring. If the EE reached this eligibility but did not retire, that could lead to the conclusion that no distributable event has occurred.

Is there a distributable event, under the terms of the plan document?

If that "practioner" is an actuary, then the Code of Professional Conduct might be relevant Adherence is not optional for any actuary who is a member of one of the US-based actuarial organizations, but I'm not suggesting any violation from the facts presented aabove.

OK, I'll show my ignorance. I know what a "4-wheeler" is, what a "fifth wheel" is, but don't know the term "five wheeler".

Assuming I understand what is the desired result, if the ER wants this EE to remain in the plan, could that be accomplished by paying him thru the current US company?

After the move, will he continue working for the same company? If so, how will he be paid?

Um, there are two songs that begin with that phrase.

I'm just curious: what is the "reduce liability" portion of this?

You might benefit from reading similar prior discussions. Here are two (there may be more): http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/50722-avoid-future-audit/?hl=split#entry218964 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/50202-plan-audit/?hl=split#entry216745