david rigby

... but remember, the plan does not have a current auditor. Be sure to ask about the expertise of whatever auditor you may propose to engage.

The first response is the most common: What does the plan document say?

I agree with Effen's response.

Data as of 30-JUN-14 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.15 4.15 Aa 4.16 4.23 4.20 A 4.21 4.34 4.28 Baa 4.63 4.78 4.71 Avg 4.33 4.38 4.36 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.18 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.95 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.04

IMHO, no QDRO should be qualified unless it includes clear definition of what happens upon death of participant and/or AP.

Another source of information is the TH regs, 1.416-1. In particular, see Q&A T22, and Q&A M7.

Although it may not be exactly on point for your question, I think there was a (very) recent court case that addresses the distinction between a church and a church-owned organization. Try a search on the BenefitsLink home page.

Sorry to be morbid, but it might be prudent for this EE to review all beneficiary designations (not just this plan). Never assume that a Will is adequate to convey such information.

No DRO? She can't get anything from his plan, at least not directly from the plan.

The referenced Q&A is focused on whether the remaining substantially equal payments get a different treatment. But there are no such payments, because the new payment form is an entirely different situation.

Yeah, but............ according to your original post, the plan paid a lump sum equivalent, not "substantially equal periodic payments".

OK, perhaps I'm having trouble with plain English today. Where in that reg do you get the "no"?

Is "...not making a match..." different from a discretionary match of zero?

(I think the references above to Rev Proc 2000-42 should be Rev Proc 2000-40.) Gray Book Q&A 2012-5 starts with this statement, "Revenue Procedure 2000-40, which provides for automatic approval of certain funding method changes, no longer applies to single-employer pension plans covered by the PPA funding rules." Note that this is part of the question, not part of the answer. What is the origin of this statement? Gray Book Q&A 2012-14 includes (as part of the answer): "Since Rev. Proc. 2000-40 no longer applies to single-employer plans subject to PPA, funding method changes generally require explicit IRS approval (with the few limited exceptions provided by Announcement 2010-3 relating to a change in valuation software or a change in the enrolled actuary)." IMHO, this statement is not supported by the 2009 regulation or Announcement 2010-3. Perhaps I've overlooked something. Has there been any formal statement that Rev. Proc. 2000-40 (or any particular part) is not applicable? It's easy to compare PPA and reach the conclusion that certain sections cannot apply since they violate the current statute (for example, sections 3.02 thru 3.09). Does it follow automatically that 3.10 is not valid? or 3.13? Not trying to be contrary, just pointing out that explicit statements are the most useful ones.

would an international mutual fund satisfy? (it's likely simpler, and many to choose from.)

Just wondering. I'm surprised by the extremely detailed attention by a few auditors, and the lack of attention by most others. As yet, no auditor has asked the obvious question, "why is there a difference between FAS35/PPA/FAS87 liabilities?" We do not use the PPA liability or the FAS liability, but I would like to do so, but don't look forward to explaining the change to every auditor.

What does the plan say?

Almost 5 years after last discussion, anyone have additional experience/insight to share? (I'm just curious, still surprised by the attention given to FAS35/ASC960 by some auditors.)

Doesn't matter that the plan sponsor thinks, only what the plan provides. Your situation is a great example why plan sponsors should think long and hard before they put any early retirement provision in a plan. Six years of service is a very low threshold; it probably reflects the TH vesting schedule, which is a nonsense reason for choosing it as an ER trigger.

Normally, a plan will define early retirement. Most often, it is something like "severance of employment after age X with at least Y years of service." You must determine the facts of your situation and compare to the plan provisions. BTW, I've never seen a qualified plan that defines "retire" by including something about "no longer working anywhere".

Effen, to my surprise, it appears your question was addressed in the Gray Book. QUESTION 2009-16 Section 415: Effect of Annuity Frequency on Age-Adjusted Dollar Limit IRC §§415(b)(2)© and 415(b)(2)(D) provide that the dollar amount limit in §415(b)(1)(A), $195,000 for 2009, is reduced if payments start before age 62 or increased if payments begin after age 65. Regulations §§1.415(b)-1(d) and 1.415(b)-1(e) specify that the age-adjusted dollar limit generally is determined as the actuarial equivalent of the annual amount of a straight life annuity commencing at the annuity starting date that has the same actuarial present value as a straight life annuity equal to the dollar limitation of §415(b)(1)(A) commencing at age 62 (for annuities beginning prior to age 62) or age 65 (for annuities beginning after age 65). Regulation §1.415(b)-1(b)(1)(i)(B) provides that, with respect to a benefit payable in a form other than a straight life annuity, the annual benefit is determined as the straight life annuity payable on the first day of each month that is actuarially equivalent to the benefit payable in such other form. Does a plan’s annuity frequency affect the calculation of the age-adjusted dollar limit in §415(b)(1)(A), or must the calculation be based on monthly factors regardless of the plan provisions? RESPONSE The calculation of the age-adjusted dollar limit is affected by the plan’s annuity frequency. The ageadjusted limit for a straight life annuity payable before age 62 or after age 65 is the actuarial equivalent of the dollar amount limit in §415(b)(1)(A) payable in the form of a straight life annuity commencing at age 62 (for annuities beginning prior to age 62) or age 65 (for annuities beginning after age 65) and payable at the same frequency. Thus, there would be different adjustment factors for annuities that were paid monthly and annually.

Peter, you might run this question by the (big plan) auditor. I did it once (although safe-harbor was not an issue) with the following result: - use 12/31, - old plan shows zero participants and zero $ at EOY, - surviving plan includes both merged participant count and $ at EOY, - happy auditor.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb09-39.pdf

2

Responses made at duplicate post: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/55723-safe-harbor-contribution-for-2012-being-made-in-2014/