david rigby

Oops, I read it backwards.

Initially, I thought this was a pretty obvious BRF problem. Am I missing something?

Using "date earned" would be a logistical nightmare for those times when it may be earned partially in December and partially in January. Therefore, almost always, any paycheck is defined by the paydate

Agree with Belgarath's conclusion. See the PBGC premium instructions, page 5. http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2013-Premium-Payment-Instructions.pdf#page=5

Yes, follow Effen's comment. However, there is an exception: while all members of all north american actuarial organizations are required to follow the Code of Professional Conduct, if this person is an EA without any membership in any of the organizations, then the Code does not apply to that person. Look to the JBEA regs in that case.

In addition to these excellent questions, it is appropriate to review the precise language of the buy-sell agreement(s), with respect to employees, benefits, etc.

See IRS Notice 2012-61, http://www.irs.gov/irb/2012-42_IRB/ar10.html Q&A E4 and E5.

The sponsor wants to buy the building from the plan? PT? Seek a PT exemption? Or sponsor wants to make cash contribution to the plan? If so, would the plan require it to be allocated to the participants?

I'll take a stab at this. No. Yes. In that order.

I'm surprised that most people have missed the important (policy) objective: no fees. Yes, this means that taxpayers are subsidizing the administration (and, as Austin points out, the "customer service"), but that's is precisely why it has a limit: when your account gets large enough, you no longer need the subsidy. While I often disagree with "government help", this one has lots to recommend it, with its current limitations. Note to government readers: more is not better.

Duplicate post. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/55052-plan-year-end/

....or the actual November date on which the account went to zero.

1. As I read your comments, you've already answered your own question. 2. My read of IRC 416(i), "compensation" is defined by reference to 414(q)(4), but this appears to apply only to determining who is a Key EE. 416© does not define "average compensation" except to declare that the averaging period cannot exceed 5 years. Conclusion: use the plan definition. Reg. here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title26/26tab_02.tpl Just my opinion.

Data as of 31-JAN-14 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.43 4.43 Aa 4.33 4.55 4.44 A 4.49 4.63 4.56 Baa 4.97 5.17 5.07 Avg 4.60 4.70 4.65 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.05 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.04 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.31

Does this mean the the plan defines the LS differently for the base portion and the excess portion of the AB? Does the plan also provide that any LS will not be less than the LS calculated using 417e3 rates?

I can remember the words to the Gilligan's Island theme song.

Hmmm. "Transition" refers to a change of accounting policy, so it is effective on the date of adoption. Of course, if the accountant told me to apply it retroactively, I would do so, but that implies restating the plan sponsor's financial statements retroactively (which is not likely). BTW, the accountant gets to decide whether it's material. In SFAS No. 158, see paragraph 16. In SFAS No. 87, see paragraph 77.

Don't overthink it. If you are eligible to defer, you can defer. If you are not eligible to defer, you cannot defer.

What is your standing to be telling the ER how to keep employment records? If the ER tells you the DOH is X, you use it. Apparently, the ER has asked the TPA whether the DOH should be July or August. Likely, this means the ER has some doubts about the correctness of "backdating" the DOH; a reasonable TPA response might be that the ER should record the DOH as the actual hire date. Don't get involved in the details. However, if you are the auditor or attorney for ER, you might have reason to be a bit more "forceful". But that's just my opinion.

Might be that the new hire was really employed in July at a different location, so it's possible that you are wrong. More likely, it might not be any of your business.

Effen is (as usual) correct. Think of it this way: the responsibility for any plan starts (and often ends) with the plan sponsor. Caution: the buyer's legal counsel should probalby review the buy-sell agreement(s) to make sure the buyer did not inadvertently "acquire" some portion of the plan liability.

Earlier discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/47087-offering-lump-sums-to-participants-already-in-pay-status/ Retirees don't like change.

Yes, you calculate additional accruals (but that is not related to the ownership status), using the plan provisions. Also you calculate the AE of NRB, using plan provisions. Be careful, since not all plans use the same method. It's possible that the net additional accrual is zero.

For ANY rollable distribution, the participant may rollover any amount between 0% and 100%. The 100% is measured BEFORE any required withholding.

Whether to file is a question that should be answered by the plan sponsor, not the TPA.