david rigby

Are you assuming the "payroll division" is incorrect? Wouldn't the plan document be the proper place to look for the plan's definition? Alternaitively, if you want a different definition, perhaps the best documentation is to amend the plan.

BTW, the reg was published in the October 15, 2009 Federal Register. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-10-15/pdf/E9-24284.pdf You may find it useful to save a PDF copy to your own computer/network. In my version of Adobe Reader, it is searchable, which is very helpful.

One participant? Is the plan subject to PBGC coverage? (Just asking to make sure that hurdle has been considered.)

Thou shalt (at least) review the regulations. 1.430(d)-1(b)(3)(iii) http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4abbcca6c52667ada824ab0ecc963f8f&node=26:5.0.1.1.1.0.3.304&rgn=div8

This topic has been discussed a few times earlier. Start here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/55009-change-benefit-election/ Your concern about the cost of annuity purchase is well-founded; look into a group annuity purchase as well as individual annuities. It cannot be stated too strongly, on average retirees will not like this.

Data as of 28-FEB-14 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.32 4.32 Aa 4.32 4.42 4.37 A 4.46 4.56 4.51 Baa 4.93 5.08 5.01 Avg 4.57 4.60 4.59 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.03 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.02 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.28

That's my understanding. Per IRC 430(g) and Reg. 1.430(g)-1, the valuation date (ie, for purposes of measuring liability, normal cost, and assets) is part of the funding method. As such, the plan cannot define it.

Just a guess: the PBGC has probably answered this exact question before.

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.