david rigby

Here is a version of that spreadsheet in Excel 97-2003. TPF&C 1971 MortalityTable.xls

Data as of April 30, 2015 (Thursday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.74 3.74 Aa 3.79 3.85 3.82 A 3.93 4.07 4.00 Baa 4.67 4.62 4.65 Avg 4.13 4.07 4.10 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.11 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.71 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.52

I was recently asked for a copy of the 1971 TPF&C table. I have inherited a spreadsheet that contains something with that label, although I cannot verify. Anyone able to verify the attached? TPF&C 1971 MortalityTable.xlsx

Courtesy is not a requirement, but it might be a good reason.

Correct. Cite is Reg. §1.415(a)-1(f)(7). (My comment was based on the possibility that the plan might not have the suspension language.)

I wonder if there might be a plan violation: since no more could accrue (due to 415), and the EE was at least NRA, does the plan require commencement of the benefit? Whether annuity or otherwise?

Don't look for trouble. You've identified this "event", and done the only thing necessary: award 100% vesting to affected participants. (Of course, all such participants get treated just like any other VT under the plan, which may or may not be a distributable event.) You're done. BTW, don't ever assume that a "partial termination" is really a "termination". For all practical purposes, the only issues are vesting and documentation.

Likely not all the questions to ask, here are a few: - Stock or asset transaction? - Merger or acquisition? Is company A buying B, or is A merging with B to form a new company C, or something else? - What happens to the plans on the day after the transaction? - Are the plans merged? - Does the transaction change the plans themselves in any way? - Etc.

It's possible your question is answered in Reg. 1.401(l)-2(d). Of course, the 401(l) regs are safe harbor provisions, which might not apply to your plan. Hey, I'm no expert; there could be a different applicable reg.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/24056-llm-in-employee-benefits/

Existing plan might have something similar to 411d6 protection. Yes, govt. plans are exempt, but not if the plan includes such provision. Adoption of a new plan might include some provision that violates the "anti-cutback" language in the current plan.

The benefits community is fortunate to have BenefitsLink as a resource. Thanks, Dave!

Absent the early retirement issued mentioned, the facts presented would produce vesting at 1/1/2017 if still employed. It appears the EE severed employment before becoming vested, so he/she is no longer a participant. Vesting will not occur at 1/1/17 unless this person is rehired. (Possible that TH vesting also applies?) P.S. You do not provide hire date, or whether this EE may have worked somewhere else in the controlled group, so I'm assuming that is not relevant. Such employment could add vesting service prior to Entry Date. For example, if hire date = 1/15/2011 (and EE worked 1000+ hours in 2011), then vesting might occur prior to 2017, but he/she must be employed.

Who is paying for the expense of this "search"?

Cash

Are there other participants in this plan?

Q: "Why is the plan written this way?" A. In order to comply with the statutes and regulations. Unless this is the Employer's (or Plan's) attorney, your reference in Post #1 and the advice in Post #6 would still apply.

Wouldn't such "rollover" have the (ultimate) effect of transferring the tax responsibility to another person?

Perhaps this is also an opportunity to consult with the big cheese, suggesting one or more methods to minimize the refund(s).

I think the original post is related to IRC 4980 transfer. Correct?

Data as of 31-MAR-15 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.52 3.52 Aa 3.61 3.65 3.63 A 3.71 3.89 3.80 Baa 4.50 4.48 4.49 Avg 3.94 3.89 3.92 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.05 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.58 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.34

Would a plan disqualification (surely an active event, not a passive one) open the door to anything else being audited?

It's possible this will automatically terminate the plan.

Does this mean all participants are HCEs?

I would say the plan should include a method, so consistency is assured.