david rigby

The glossary is in ASC 715-30-20. Settlement is defined as a transaction that is an irrevocable action, relieves the employer (or the plan) of primary responsibility for a pension benefit obligation, and eliminates significant risks related to the obligation and the assets used to effect the settlement. 715-30-15-6 includes this additonal text. "Examples of transactions that constitute a settlement include making lump-sum cash payments to plan participants in exchange for their rights to receive specified pension benefits and purchasing nonparticipating annuity contracts to cover vested benefits." BTW, paragraph 3 of SFAS No. 88 is nearly the exact same wording.

Just make sure your document is valid first.

The defintion of a settlement does not include regular annuity payments. The test of whether a settlement has occurred is in ASC 715-30-35-82, "...if the cost of all settlements (emphais added) during a year is greater than the sum of the service cost and interest cost components..." BTW, there is an accounting policy here: the rest of the referenced section states that settlement recognition may be (but is not requried) at a lower threshold level. Is this in agreement with your research?

http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/ssdi/

Hear! Hear! Attaboy, Dave.

The question of "should they be merged" is much different. Might be best to ask this question of each plan's actuary. If the actuary is not involved in giving advice, then the principals should consider hiring another consulting actuary solely for this purpose.

Agree with above comments, with one more. I don't agree with your reference, "...it may or may not even allow lumps when and if it comes out". Likely, this is an optional form of payment in the plan which cannot be removed, at least not for existing benefits. (Possible exception: if the lump sum option was added as a temporary feature, it can legitimately "expire".)

IRS uses 2 decimal places. For example, the unrounded third segment for 2013 is 7.9472. This is rounded (first) to 7.95. Then the corridor: 7.95 x 85% = 6.7575 round to 6.76% http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Funding-Yield-Curve-Segment-Rates However, it's possible the IRS uses a different sequence of rounding, still using 2 decimals at the end.

Just curious: sibce the EE was fired (original post), and waived something (post #7), why did the EE sign a waiver? Is it because the ER paid him some cash? If so, does this create a CODA? (Not that it matters, since the ER should follow the plan document, as suggested more than once.)

The statute reads, If your plan uses the minimum (ie, the reference above to "paragraph (1)", then using January 2 would seem to fail 410(a)(4)(A).

This is a great question. Due to some action(s), is it possible that the plan is terminated automatically under its own terms?

1. I disagree with the response from ESOPGuy. If a partial termination occurs, that means some (perhaps many) participants had a severance of employment. However, the part-term creates 100% vesting for those affected participants. Whether it also creates a distributable event is determined only under the terms of the plan document. 2. Probably yes. It's possible the ER might want to ensure there is no question by simply amending the plan to provide vesting for the terminees. BTW, the cost is often not much. 3. Agree, probably not worth doing a DL, assuming you've got some good advice looking over your shoulder w/r/t actual plan administration.

Actually, I suggest the picture posted by Andy is exactly why we should have science teachers on the playground.

Data as of 31-MAR-14 (Monday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.32 4.32 Aa 4.35 4.41 4.38 A 4.46 4.54 4.50 Baa 4.93 5.05 4.99 Avg 4.58 4.58 4.58 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.27 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.16 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.28

No doubt others can state this more eloquently than I can, but you might be assuming something. IRC 410 defines the "minimum participation standards" and 410(b)(3) contains the "union exclusion". Hoewever, it's not that simple. 410(b)(3) Exclusion of certain employees For purposes of this subsection, there shall be excluded from consideration— (A)employees who are included in a unit of employees covered by an agreement which the Secretary of Labor finds to be a collective bargaining agreement between employee representatives and one or more employers, if there is evidence that retirement benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers,... Is there such evidence?

What does the plan say? Likely, distributions under $5,000 do not require spousal consent. However, due to mandatory withholding rules, a potential distribution of $200+ can be distributed as a direct rollover, so the participant should receive an election for this purpose. If the distribution was made in cash with no withholding: Uh Oh! See IRC 401(a)(31).

Just my opinion. Once a participant terminates employment, the deferred vested benefit is fixed. For example $100 x 60% = $60. After that, you care only about the $60 for all purposes (except in the case of a future rehire). But, I could be wrong. It's happened before. Just ask my ex-wife.

Peter, does the possible existence of a qualified plan [ie, under IRC 401(a)] have any bearing on the nature of ER recordkeeping? For example, plan eligibility and vesting (and perhaps benefit accrual) will be based on 1000+ hours in a plan year. It might be prudent for the ER to maintain some type of hours record for any (and all) PT employees. (Agreed, this could be moot if the ER "errs" in the direction of the employEE by your presumption.)

The actuary opened a pizza shop. Of course, he named it PI. And of course, it was open 22/7.

Re-reading this was bizarre. In Post # 7, the writer suggests that $$ in a trust/bank account could be "transferred" to a qualified plan. All the commentary overlooked the horrible result: changing after-tax money into pre-tax money. Perhaps the original writer can tell us what actually happened. Inquiring minds want to know.

Might be the "mailbox rule". Try the Search feature using "mailbox".

In general, the plan design should be strongly influenced by the owner's expectation of cash available for contributions, now and in the future. - For example, if he/she expects cash to be much more available 10 years from now, then the accruals need not be rapid now. The benefiit formula can be amended at a later date. - Dovetail this with the owner's expectation of when he/she wants to retire and/or sell the business. For example, working until 55 gets you a different design (and pattern of contributions) that working until 62. - Don't forget about the death benefit.

Just a guess: Are you including expenses in the 430 NC but excluding them from the 404 NC?

Blue Books available here: http://www.pbgc.gov/res/other-guidance/blue-books.html

Instead of advice from these Message Boards, you need another attorney.