david rigby

Oh, now I see. Your "these amounts" refers to the AFN; I misread it to refer to the FTAP. w/r/t the AFN, I think the applicable guidance is DOL Field Assistance Bulletin 2013-01. (Does not change my answer. Absent any updates from the DOL, the "MAP-21 Supplement" still exists for plan years thru 2014.)

I'm reading HATFA. Also, see IRS Notice 2014-53 and IRS Notice 2012-61, and IRS Phone Forum 09/27/2012.

As I read it, there was a choice for 2013, but not 2014. BTW, the IRS website no longer publishes "MAP rates" for 2014.

I'll bet there is more to it. - is the participant an HCE? - an employee who had some authority to direct the payment to ex-wife?

Data as of 31-DEC-14 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.72 3.72 Aa 3.80 3.80 3.80 A 3.87 4.06 3.97 Baa 4.65 4.70 4.68 Avg 4.11 4.07 4.09 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.36 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.84 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.52

That's hilarious, whether your misspelling was intentional or not.

Never seen it trigger an audit.

...and tune up the resume.

When the PBGC makes a promise, they are using other people's money. The process is broken.

Careful reading of the plan document will probably reveal (as suggested) that nothing in the document will provide the desired 100% vesting. Therefore, an amendment is required, not just suggested. The amendment could, but does not require, stating any reasons for giving the advanced vesting. Nevertheless, corporate management should be able to succinctly articulate those reasons, if asked.

Having a rehired EE automatically eligible to contribute at rehire date is not the same as having that person elect to contribute.

A few comments: 1. To those who may be concerned about whether the OP violates any rules about public discussion of fees: IMHO, it does not. The posting is by a potential buyer of actuarial services, not a seller. 2. Such rules may be violated if sellers used this thread to discuss fee specifics. But the discussion above involves general comments, not specifics, so (again IMHO) this is not a problem. 3. There is a comment above about "$4,000 is a steal". This is not a fee discussion; it appears to suggest (correctly, in my view) that the fee in the OP is already a competitive fee, at least approximately. Of course, there is nothing wrong with shopping around. 4. In answer to the question, “Is there any third party administrator geared towards owner-only plans…” the answer is YES. In fact, there are many actuaries who work on such small plans but do not work on large plans, and vice versa. I advise the OP to locate one or more of these small-plan actuaries for a fee quote. I’m not one of those, but there are many actuaries like me who are qualified to offer a few recommendations. (Usually, we know a lot of other actuaries.) There is nothing wrong with requesting referrals. 5. I suggest the OP consider the overall discussion as reassurance that the training and experience of a qualified actuary will be reflected in a fee well-above the "button-pusher" level, and you probably will also get some advice thrown in. BTW, the “small-plan” actuaries generally do not work for large corporations that have lots of overhead costs. 6. No details of the owner-employee are mentioned in the OP. Depending on that person’s demographics, the OP may encounter an experienced actuary to advise that the owner-employee does not need a DB plan – yet. In this case, the actuary will give you a brief explanation, and you will understand the explanation and be reassured. Good luck.

If the payments are subject to withholding in the same manner as regular salary/wages, then using a payroll system as the payment tool seems to make sense. BTW, mind the FICA limit.

OK, in theory.

Not sure I understand the question. If the "accompanying" plan is a SERP, such plan's existence or provisions have no bearing on what the qualified plan provides. And vice versa. Is that what you mean?

That depends. Did you iron-y the sheets?

The actuaries and other math geeks will get a kick out of this. http://www.tylervigen.com/

Also, have you checked the Gray Book? About a dozen Q&A's related to 412(d)(2), including a few that were issued after the October 2009 regs.

IMHO, the answer does not change. Give the same argument to the spouse as to the participant: if the plan buys an annuity, it's $8 per month, or the plan pays a lump sum. In either case, you (the spouse) might have an opportunity to get a share, in the property settlement. (Of course, I'm not suggesting the plan representative talk directly to the spouse, unless the participant suggests.) As AtA suggests, the plan may have a deadline, and it may be too late. Sorry.

Some help from the Gray Book? QUESTION 2008-21 PPA Benefit Restrictions: Deemed Plan Amendments For purposes of the benefit restriction rules, are any of the following changes regarded as plan amendments that increase liabilities? a) Increase in IRC §415 limit due to statutory COLA adjustment. b) Increase in IRC §401(a)(17) limit due to statutory COLA adjustment If the answer to any of these is yes, what happens if the plan is not sufficiently well-funded to allow the amendment to take effect? RESPONSE a) Yes. If the increase in the IRC §415 limit results in an increase in benefits currently in pay status or an increase in the accrued benefit of any participant, then this increase is an amendment that is potentially subject to benefit restrictions. If the plan is not sufficiently well-funded to allow the amendment to take effect, then the increase in the limit is deferred until such time as the plan is sufficiently well-funded to allow it to take effect. b) Yes. However, the increase in the IRC §401(a)(17) limit only affects accruals at future dates and does not increase accrued benefits on the date the new limit first takes effect. As a result, the amendment cannot push the AFTAP below 80% if it was not already below 80%, and if the AFTAP was already below 80%, the amount of the section 436 contribution that would be required for the amendment to take effect is zero. QUESTION 2013-26 PPA Benefit Restrictions: IRC §401(a)(17) Increases for Non-Calendar Year Plan Year As discussed in 2008 Gray Book Q&A 21, annual increases in the §401(a)(17) pay limit are treated as plan amendments, but they do not need to be tested under §436 because they do not immediately increase the accrued benefit, and therefore do not increase the FT. However, the special rule in §1.430(d)-1(d)(2) requires that a mid-year amendment (i.e., an amendment adopted after the valuation date and effective during the plan year) be reflected in the valuation for the plan year if it would not have been able to take effect if the increase in TNC had been treated as an increase in FT. Plan A, with a July 1 to June 30 plan year, has a 2012 certified AFTAP of exactly 80%. Does this mean that the January 1, 2013 increase in the §401(a)(17) pay limit must be reflected in the July 1, 2012 valuation? RESPONSE Yes, if the TNC would be increased if the higher §401(a)(17) pay limit were reflected. Note that many plans limit pay during the year based on the §401(a)(17) limit in effect at the beginning of the plan year or at the beginning of a 12-month computation period, in which case a mid-year increase in the limit would have no effect until the following plan year. This is frequently true of plans where benefits are based on final average compensation, because the limit that applies to the final 12-month period in an averaging period is the limit in effect at the beginning of such 12-month averaging period. However, an increase in TNC could occur where a plan bases benefits on a period shorter than a full year, such as a final average pay plan where benefits are based on “high x-months” (not necessarily consecutive), or for a cash balance plan or career average pay plan that determines the benefit accrual for each month based on compensation for that month, limited to a one-month pro-ration of the §401(a)(17) pay limit.

Terminology can be very important. If A bought the assets of B, then company B was not sold and still exists, and B remains the sponsor of its own plan. (If B no longer existed, then B's plan might automatically be terminated; check the plan document.) A and B probably need to revisit the question of "plan merger" with its own legal counsel, separately.

Data as of 28-NOV-14 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.83 3.83 Aa 3.95 3.93 3.94 A 3.99 4.17 4.08 Baa 4.66 4.73 4.70 Avg 4.20 4.17 4.19 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.21 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.78 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.64

Welcome to ERISA.

Just an observation: there seems to be a implicit desire in some of the posts above to "justify" (my word) investing in an illiquid asset, where the justification is: - it might meet the definition of "qualifying asset", and - the financial advisor claims to "specialize in alternative investments". Neither of these is a good reason. I hope that is obvious. Why not put the onus of prudence and suitability on the FA, rather than the onus of unsuitability on the plan sponsor?

Be very skeptical about claims of liquidity.