david rigby

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.

This might help. Gray Book 2006-33 Other DB Plan Issues: Early Retirement Benefits and Minimum Lump Sum Requirements A qualified defined benefit plan provides lump sum benefits (non-small-amount). For employees eligible for early retirement, the plan states that the lump sum benefit is the larger of: (i) The present value of the immediate annuity commencing at the participant’s early retirement date calculated using the plan’s general basis for actuarial equivalence -- the applicable mortality table and 7%, and (ii) The present value of the participant’s deferred annuity commencing at normal retirement age using the applicable mortality table and the applicable interest rate. Does this plan meet the minimum lump sum requirements of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code? RESPONSE No. Under regulation §1.417(e)-1(d)(1), the applicable interest rate and mortality table must be used to determine the minimum value of any benefit that is valued. Thus, a third value would need to be considered in this scenario – the present value of the early retirement benefit using the applicable interest rate and applicable mortality table.

Data as of 31-JUL-13 (Wednesday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.38 4.38 Aa 4.38 4.51 4.45 A 4.61 4.68 4.65 Baa 5.16 5.40 5.28 Avg 4.72 4.74 4.73 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.91 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.95 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.28

Just in case you haven't included this, the 415 dollar limitation accrues over (minimum 10) years of participation (in your case, that begins 1/1/2011), while the 100% of pay limitation accrues of (minimum 10) years of service.

Remember that the role of the Internal Revenue Code (and corresponding regulations) is to define boundaries (ie, minimums and maximums), not to define every piece of a puzzle or procedure. With limited exceptions, you will not find "approved methods" in the law.

It depends. When you say, "...comp prior to 1/1/2011...", are referring to a plan freeze? If so, review the terms of the amendment that executed that freeze.

Look here: http://www.irs.gov/uac/e-News-Subscriptions-2

Advisory Opinions here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/AOs/main.html#2001 You want 2001-02A.

Does 1.430(d)-1(d) provide any help?

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsDBPannualfundingnotice.html

A 2011 contribution cannot be put on the 2012 SB. Was it deducted in 2011? If so, it is a 2011 contribution for both minimum and maximum. If the contribution was more than the deductible amount, see IRC 4972. The actuary should already be very familiar with these issues. The "excess" seems rather unusual. Might be reasonable for the actuary to double-check all calculations.

If the valdate is not the first day of the PY, your Q is answered in Reg. 1.430(g)-1(d)(2) http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=ed50d185a6429202524ec5215ff8a967&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:5.0.1.1.1.0.3.306&idno=26

I would not use that phrasing. See regulation 1.430(d)-1(f)(4)(iii).

First, read the document so you understand whether the TH minimum continues to accrue. Second, make sure you have not overstated (or understated) any participant's accrued benefit.