david rigby

Fascinating. A law firm plan sponsor, and the advice just might be "get a legal opinion".

The trustee elected to terminate the plan? Unless the trustee is also the sponsor, this will be a problem. Get legal advice.

Don't overthink it. Almost always, the date of the check will indicate the year of 1099.

I'm not aware of any minimum. If you are changing PY to coincide with sponsor's FY, my hunch is that the IRS won't care how long is the short PY, since they will (probably) agree that such a change is a good idea. BTW, the change of PY is accomplished by plan amendment, and it MUST be adopted before the end of the short year.

Well...... there still might be time to fix this, possibly by creating 2 plans instead of 1.

I might take the other direction. It's usually easiest to report on SSA when the information is "fresh", so do it as soon as you can, without regard to the participant's status.

I'm often intrigued by discussion about "union members", as if that is the final answer to some question. Not sure how picky the IRS is on this point, but it's good to know the second phrase in IRC 410(b)(3)(A): "...if there is evidence that retirement benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers,..."

Will the HCE plan pass the coverage requirements on its own? If not, then it must be combined with the other plan(s). In that case, all other discrimination testing (ie, as mentioned in Post 2 above) must be done on a combined basis.

Don't overlook the practical aspects: at 34, retirement planning should not come before life insurance (very inexpensive) as well as college costs.

... and is not rollable.

Be careful. - Does "...could have started collecting in 2005..." refer to the NRD? If so, you probably have to be concerned about actuarial adjustment for late retirement, rather than retroactive payments. - To an early retirement eligibility date? If so, you first have to determine if the EE elected commencement of payments. (Mere eligibility to commence is not the same as election to commence.) In other words, there are no retroactive payments unless there was an election in favor of commencement.

Just to make sure, will the unfreeze include recognition of 2011 and 2012 as benefit service?

Data as of 29-NOV-13 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.62 4.62 Aa 4.54 4.73 4.64 A 4.76 4.84 4.80 Baa 5.22 5.50 5.36 Avg 4.84 4.92 4.88 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.86 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.04 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.47

Yep, and there is non-discrimination testing also. Before including after-tax contributions (mandatory or not) in a DC plan, it probably makes sense to consider plan provisions to provide for automatic pre-tax contributions.

The original post implies, but does not state, that the plan is a defined contribution plan. The advice above is good if it's a DC plan, but additional issues might apply if it's a Defined Benefit Plan.

"...when does the payment increase?" Never?

I suggest the answer is almost always Yes. If a contribution is discretionary, it is usually the governing authority (ie, the Board) that has the responsibility/authority to exercise that discretion.

Some prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/3725-how-does-an-employer-reverse-unterminate-a-plan-termination http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/36663-safe-harbor-and-unterminated-plan http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/52385-un-terminate-a-plan/#entry226898 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/8786-un-terminating-a-401k-plan/

Most plan documents include (often in the definition section) a statement that defines the plan name. If so, changing the sponsor name will not automatically change the plan name.

Not criticizing or pointing fingers, but are you sure? Could this person be confused about what he received? For example, there is a SSA push to get all payees to receive electronic payments, http://www.ssa.gov/deposit/

"adopt" is a potentially confusing term in this discussion. In general, AE must be defined in the plan (it's part of "definitely determinable"). Can you have different AE definitions for different groups? Maybe, but that's a potential violation of non-discrimination. Not sure why you would want to do this. Must the AE defnition for post-NRD increases be the same as other AE defintions? Yes, NO, assuming no discrimination in favor of HCEs, and clarity is essential. This discussion might also help: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/53203-late-retirement-benefit/

It seems likely that the Plan Administrator is obligated to follow the court order. BTW, are you sure the payment should be made to the estate of the AP, or perhaps as a rollover to the AP's IRA? Just asking.

Duplicate discussion thread. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/54557-plan-trustee-deceased/

Good comments. Don't forget to check the payment form elected by the retiree: if it was a joint-and-survivor, the plan may need to pay the spouse if spouse survived the retiree.

Let's be careful here. ERISA section 4021(b) defines the exemptions. Subsection (9) is "substantial owners". But don't overlook the possible application of subsection (13): "professional service employer".