david rigby

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/

If your question is whether to include them in the plan's definition of comp, it might be helpful to examine your relationship to the plan. If you are the TPA, do you have any authority to make a plan interpretation? Do you know about any potential examples of how this question was addressed in the past (ie, precedent)? In general, before making any plan interpretation, it's a good idea to identify who has the authority to do so.

Altough it was on the form SSA, that does not eliminate the possibility that the benefit was paid out (correctly) in a later year.

If there was real theft, make sure there are real police involved. One prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/37085-employee-theft/

Several prior discussion threads on this topic. Try search terms such as "embezzle", "theft", etc.

If you want to be any good at it, this statement is false.

Would it be simpler to produce the document(s) that show "timely adoption" of the amendment?

This raises the purely administrative question: what documentation does the plan sponsor require at the time a participant and/or beneficiary applies for a benefit? eg, in the case of a benefit paid to a surviving spouse, a marriage license?

Data as of 30-May-14 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.16 4.16 Aa 4.11 4.19 4.15 A 4.19 4.29 4.24 Baa 4.62 4.77 4.70 Avg 4.31 4.35 4.33

...but you may want to phrase it a bit less confrontational.

Or..... might the husband/wife own some vacation property?? If so, many prior discussions about prohibited transaction.

Let's be clear on something: when you say "Bank", it appears you are referring to the sponsoring employer. Is that correct? (Sometimes "bank" is used in reference to a plan trustee. If the sponsoring employer is/was a bank, it may be worthwhile to say "employer" or "sponsor" or something similar, avoiding confusion/implication about a trustee.) If this is/was a formal SERP, there should be a written plan document. That seems like a good place to start. Since the original poster has not provided many details, I'll assume nothing. Here are a few questions that are useful before anyone here can offer any reasonable comments: Is this a defined benefit SERP? Is the participant (you?) still an employee? Is there dispute about the accrued benefit (if a DB-type SERP) or the account balance (if a DC-type SERP). Is there a vesting provision that might affect the amount of the benefit? is there a plan provision defining the lump sum calculation? (Many other potential questions.)

so what? Does everything have to be split 50/50 in a divorce? Of course not.

Huh? Are you suggesting that you offer to let her be the beneficiary on some (or all) of your life insurance? Is this in exchange for something else? You may be focused too much on "leave behind money for my family", such that you give up a (not trivial) life insurance benefit, which is meant for your family.

To clarify, QPSA refers to a death benefit, paid to a surviving spouse if you die before retirement. Some plans will have a QPSA (or other pre-retirement death benefit) payable to a non-spouse. In your case, it appears the QDRO has (probably correctly, as Effen stated above) specifed your ex-wife as the "surviving spouse" for a portion of your pension benefit (ie, the pre-divorce portion). BTW, be sure you check with your employer to correctly identify the beneficiary(ies) for any remaining benefit you have. For example, your ex-wife was probably listed as your beneficiary in your 401(k) plan, but you should change it now that she has been paid her portion under the QDRO. Verify this for everything that could need a beneficiary designation (IRA, benefit from prior employement, life insurance, etc.) Your divorce will not automatically change any of it.