david rigby

By all means, create the PFB balance if you think it may be needed. Give yourself/plan flexibility. The question about "...should or must I redo the 1/1/15 val..." is a standard of practice issue. For what it's worth, my opinion is that proper actuarial documentation will lead you to issue a revised report, but you might be able to issue a shorter revision, focused only on that purpose. It appears this plan is not audited, but (I suggest) your documentation should be sufficiently clear and complete that an auditor would be able to follow along and accept your report(s). Perhaps review ASOP 41, and review other actuarial literature (such as Contingencies, The Actuary, CCA Journal, etc.) to see if others have contributed commentary.

Does this look like fraud?

Often it shows up on the W-2, but not on the final pay stub.

I wonder if there is a market for teaching people how to do research. <sigh>

Reg. 1.417(e)-1(d)(10)(ii).

Horror story. Many years ago, I had a professor who testified against a bill in the state legislature that sought to define Pi as 3. Yikes!

From my seat, this is a pretty strong statement. While it may be possible to read something like this into a plan, the majority of plan administrators/sponsors would disagree. Me too. IMHO, if the VT is unable/unwilling to keep the PA advised of a current address, it's not the responsibility (ie, $$) of the PA to do it for him/her.

Judging by the quality of those I have reviewed, these "specialists" are not very successful.

Low audit risk is one thing. Following the plan document might be another. The plan administrator should consider the cautions raised in Post # 9.

Here is the news release announcing the acquisition of Dade Behring, July 2007. Don't know when the transaction was completed. http://www.siemens.com/press/en/pressrelease/?press=/en/pr_cc/2007/07_jul/axx200707103_1457193.htm Attached is the form 5500 for the 2008 plan year. Note the plan name. A review of other Siemens documentation indicates (not verified) that: "The Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Inc. Cash Balance Plan (SHDI) was merged into the Siemens Pension Plan effective March 31, 2009." SiemensHealthcareDiagnostics 2008 5500.pdf

It appears your "suspension notice" has a conflict with your first quoted item from the SPD. Ask about it.

Was A purchased (all stock and other ownership interests), or just the assets of A? If the former, that implies A continues to exist as a subsidiary of B, and B automatically becomes the sponsor of the Plan. If the plan is PBGC-covered, review the list of Reportable Events. Might need a Form PBGC 10 filing. But be careful. Review the plan document, especially to see if the bankruptcy has automatically triggered a plan termination.

Data as of 27-FEB-15 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.64 3.64 Aa 3.63 3.67 3.65 A 3.69 3.94 3.82 Baa 4.39 4.53 4.46 Avg 3.90 3.95 3.93 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.18 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.67 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.38

But not unless it is permitted under the terms of the plan.

1. Since A is the surviving plan, this seems rather obvious. 2. You may have some flexibility. See Gray Book Q&A 97-38. 3. The October 2009 regs had generous use of "reserved" whenever the topic was "merger". I'm not sure if there is anything since, but you might review later Gray Books. Notably 2012-14 and 2013-4. But there might be other views/sources of information.

Duplicate post. See this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56962-inward-rollovers-to-a-qualified-plan-by/

Discussed before. Might be reasonable to assume that preemption applies, but it also might be reasonable to avoid a fight.

Prior discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/41577-refund-due-date/?hl=7503#entry178896

I might phrase it a bit more softly, but the conclusion "don't" is correct. While you might be able to construct the suggested rollover, it's probably not advisable. - The plan no longer has a relationship to the recipient once a complete distribution has been made (assuming no errors, etc.) - Since the plan is intended for the "employees and their beneficiaries" (ERISA section 2), the beneficiary in the original post may not have a relationship that permits any participation in the plan.

I think there was a typo in the reg cite. It should be 1.401(a)-13(e). http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=eb15c3dd9b54af8a7857ae857fcd3a0e&node=se26.5.1_1401_2a_3_613&rgn=div8

Very likely, this is a payment form not permitted by the plan. If the retired participant dies first, and some portion goes to the (soon-to-be-ex) spouse, that spouse can give the after-tax portion to the kid(s); unlikely the plan will be a party to that transaction.

No matter what, don't forget, it's not your plan.

Austin, your original post used the term "QDRO" rather than "proposed QDRO". If it's really the latter, and you think it does not adequately identify how to divide, then bounce it back to the attorney.

Good cite. Note that 4972(d)(1)(B) references 4980©(1). In the latter section, note the phrase "...at all times.."

Does a non-profit organization have to worry about deductions?