david rigby

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?

Use the plain understanding of a quarter end date. Simultaneously, you've found sloppy plan drafting.

Southern Railway is now part of Norfolk Southern.

Very common for BOY valuations to ignore those who could enter during the middle of the year.

If there are many years of AE increase, don't overlook 415 limit.

Play nice.

Who is "we"? If you are the actuary, it's not your role to determine the discount rate. BTW, I agree with Effen's comments above.

First. Plan definitions Second. Administrative procedures. Third. If the participant believes the administrative procedure is in error, or in violation of a plan provision, plan appeal provisions.

Kevin, just an opinion: if the document is silent on vesting, you may have to look to other sources of information. Likely, the first source is whether there is a precedent for another participant. If nothing else is available, the result might be as you imply: vested at retirement date. However, if the plan has an Early retirement date (that applies to this person), it will be difficult to claim vesting occurs at Normal retirement date.