david rigby

820 contains some exceptions in 820-10-15-3. Verify whether any apply to your situation.

Does the governmental entity know what types of services they want?

Just asking. Are these the same thing? That is, when one partner leaves, does that automatically dissolve the partnership?

Data as of 30-AUG-13 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.49 4.49 Aa 4.47 4.67 4.57 A 4.67 4.76 4.72 Baa 5.17 5.50 5.34 Avg 4.77 4.86 4.82 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.11 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.20 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.39

Exactly. Any actuary could speculate about the meaning, but the first solution should be to ask the other actuary. BTW, that "description" seems very odd to this actuary.

Presumably this means "the plan sponsor acquired..." Presumably "acquired" refers to "...purchased the entire ownership of..." and does not refer to "... purchased the assets of..." If otherwise, please specify.

I think Effen is correct, but there may be two other issues: - what does the plan say (maybe nothing, maybe not), and - what is the historical precedent (if any).

I think either of these answers is reasonable. Most importantly, it should be part of the asset valuation method, and should be clearly documented.

Prospectively, not retroactively.

Yes, but nothing in the post indicated that such restriction applied.

A deemed burn is associated with a 436 restriction. No restriction has been identified.

As far as I can tell, the facts in the OP do not require a burn.

How do you know there is a deemed burn?

This statement should not be interpreted that the plan will follow the instructions contained in a will. Post #2 above is the central advice.

No doubt, your attorney will review several existing service contracts to make sure there is no "trigger" related to the sale.

Don't forget the different accrual minimums in 415: the 415 dollar limitation accrues over (minimum 10) years of participation, while the 100% of pay limitation accrues of (minimum 10) years of service. Does this affect your question about NC?

Sounds like the "freeze" does not include any increase in the 415 limit. Andy is correct: confirm first that this is what the plan provisions actually provide.

Is this a one-person plan, esp w/ any excess assets? If so, amend to unfreeze?

In addition to possible amendment of the order, don't overlook the possible need for amendment of the plan.

Any room to increase the benefit to absorb the excess? w/r/t expenses, you may be able to use excess for paying current year expenses, but it might be problematic to go back to prior years. But ask the plan's attorney. If all else fails, I'm willing to be a plan participant to help you use up the excess.

http://fuguerre.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/involuntary-transfer-of-prisoners-pension-benefits-violates-anti-alienation-rules/

Don't forget that you might wear several hats. If the plan does not have the payout language you anticipate, an amendment may be possible. However, it is not usually the Trustee who executes an amendment.

ERISA 511 uses the word "fined". Thus, it goes to the "guv'mint".

See "COLA Increases Table" at this link: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/COLA-Increases-for-Dollar-Limitations-on-Benefits-and-Contributions

The "Response" above indicates the use of the ER benefit and an immediate LS factor. But the Regulation cited does not mention ER, only NR. A bit confusing. So far, I have no other cites.