david rigby

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.

Yes, yes, yes. I agree with My2Cents advice, which can be boiled down to "follow the plan". However, mbozek makes a very good point about whether the participant's question is an appeal of a benefit determination. Of course, that also gets you back to "follow the plan". Avoid any type of incentive outside the plan.

Not so sure about that. "within 12 months" is not the same as "completion of 12 months". Suppose EE is hired 06/15/14 (full-time) and entry dates are June 30 and December 31. The original post indicates the EE should enter on 12/31/14, doesn't it? BTW, check prior documents. It's possible this is a drafting error (which might explain your problem but not solve it).

There have been a few prior similar discussion threads. Here's one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56082-terminated-plan-last-participant-not-responding/#.VGteOE10yUk

Also, it would be prudent for A to rethink why it wants to do this. The result might be unnecessary administrative cost. Or worse. It's easy to see that "...consider him as an employee of the other new firm..." can lead to incorrect service records.

Here is a current link to 80-229 http://www.charitableplanning.com/document/669148 Prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/12131-distributions-from-terminated-small-db-plan/#.VGErOk10yUk IRS Manual for plan terminations http://www.irs.gov/irm/part7/irm_07-012-001.html See especially section 7.12.1.20.2 To original poster: does the plan address this question?

Answering the original question, NO they are not the same. Note that the statutory definition in IRC 411(a)(8) has nothing to do with service.

... and those Enrolled Actuaries might be glad to engage in a service relationship with you. Expecting this for free seems presumptuous. To me, anyway.

Forget to get the 10/31/14 data, but here is the data for the second trading day of November. Data as of 04-NOV-14 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.89 3.89 Aa 4.00 4.02 4.01 A 4.08 4.24 4.16 Baa 4.70 4.77 4.74 Avg 4.26 4.23 4.25 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.34 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.93 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.79

There are a few prior related discussion threads, which can be found using a key word such as "brokerage" or "brokerage option".

john, Your concern might be valid, but I'm skeptical since the benefit paid was a lump sum. It seems to me that the actual damages have not been defined, nor is it clear who is culpable. While I'm not asking for the details, it seems that you might need to be specific in your definitions (not here, obviously).

The present value approach may be more complex than needed. BTW, from the original post, it's not clear there are any "damages", but that may not be relevant to anyone else.

That might be the correct interpretation. Only the document(s) can tell you for sure.

Similar (and longer) discussion here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56416-form-5500-sup/#.VE_cBE10yUk

http://benefitslink.com/pr/detail.php?id=49237#.VE6HrU10yUk Attaboy Dave! And that picture is very recent.