david rigby

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.

Perhaps another approach? We've used the term "frozen plan" but your description is that only part of the plan is frozen. Let me suggest that (particularly since your Post #4 indicates "transition to PEP") that all parts of the plan were frozen, or intended to be frozen. Not throwing stones, just wondering if (a) your description is accurate, or (b) the freeze amendment drafted incorrectly. As Effen implied above, it would be unusual to have a "partially frozen" benefit formula.

Might be relevant. Gray Book Q&A 2008-42. Other DB Plan Issues: Declining Accrued Benefits May an accrued benefit decrease during continued employment due to any of the following: a) Increases in a Social Security offset? b) Increases in covered compensation? c) Reductions in average compensation? d) Reductions in the maximum benefit limitations under 415 (other than legislation or changes in response to a variable index)? e) Investment performance underlying a variable annuity? RESPONSE a) Yes, but only to the extent that the offset meets the restrictions specified in Rev. Rule 84-45 and is in keeping with the qualification rule stated in IRC §401(a)(15). b) and c) No. In this situation, the reduction would be on account of increasing service since the reduction would not occur if the participant terminated employment. A reduction in benefits due to increases in age or service would violate IRC §411(b)(1)(G). This was the rationale behind the answer to Question 33 from the 2003 Gray Book which dealt with situation c) above. d) Where a post age 65 actuarial increase would be limited by the compensation limit as capped by IRC §401(a)(17), the benefits must be started, or “suspended”, to avoid an impermissible forfeiture. Benefits accrued prior to the IRC §415 regulatory effective date would be insulated from having to make this change and could continue to provide actuarial increases in spite of the 401(a)(17) limit. In addition, note that for benefits accrued after the regulatory effective date and prior to adoption of plan amendments, regulation §1.411(d)-3 would limit the ability to add a suspension of benefits approach. Moreover, for participants who have attained age 70-1/2, suspension of benefits would generally not be permitted. e) Yes. In this case the reduction is not on account of age, service or plan amendment.

Terminology is important. "Accrued benefit" refers to the benefit earned at any point in time, but payable at NRD. The "early retirement benefit" generally reflects any applicable reduction in the AB, due to payment commencing at ERD. Is it possible the $700 is the age 55 AB, but the $650 is the age 56 ERB?

Please clarify what you mean by "converted to an annuity". (I have a hunch, but it's not relevant, only your explanation.)

You could use a phased approach: change the match on the first 4%, and then use the optional PS contribution if desired. That might get you some feedback about whether to use "phase 2" . Alternatively, you could ask a sample of participants.

IMHO, yes, the minimum funding standards apply for 2014 (for example), if your DOPT is 01/01/2014 (for example). (Zero minimum is not the same as "funding standards don't apply".)

I wonder what would happen if a participant asked to see a copy of the determination letter.

If this is transfer of surplus, it's not "assigned" to any individual, so there is no "plan distribution". Note that both Schedule I and Schedule H of 5500 have a question about plan-to-plan transfers.

Tom has a great idea. Since Congress thinks the solution to everything is indexing, let's index this "trigger point".

How about some more search features? State? Zipcode?

There may or may not be "combined testing", but this will not be "since it is not a CB plan".

What is your relationship? Do you have any such responsibilty? If you think someone else is doing it wrong, but it's their responsibility, have you put your concerns in writing? If you have a cite (or other reference), give it, but it sounds like you might be taking responsibility for someone else's duty.

My only recommendaiton is to review this Forum: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/forum/89-qualified-domestic-relations-orders-qdros/. It's very easy to administer a QDRO wrong, so your "interview" process should be very cautious, and detailed.

Data as of 31-DEC-13 (Tuesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.57 4.57 Aa 4.59 4.74 4.67 A 4.83 4.90 4.87 Baa 5.25 5.49 5.37 Avg 4.89 4.93 4.91 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.19 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.34 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.65