david rigby

I agree with other comments. There is an implication that "becoming" top-heavy will cause discord. Does the owner really think the other employees don't already know he has "the lion's share"?

Have you checked the 411 regs?

Slow down just a bit. Not all plans permit a 50% deferral. If not permitted by this plan, there might be 2 mistakes: filling out the form incorrectly, and processing a deferral not permitted by plan provisions.

No, I did not say that. Check the statute and regs to identify what is required on the 6057(e) statement, and when.

Several previous discussion threads on similar topics. You might try the Search feature, using a keyword such as "missing" or "locator".

When (or if) the participant ever gets put on a Form SSA, he/she must also be given a statement describing that deferred benefit (DB or DC). See IRC 6057(e). Note that certain information is required for this purpose, which may not have been included on a previous statement.

The time it takes for the IRS review serves to extend the completion deadline for the entire termination process; it has no bearing on the PBGC 60-day period. Therefore, if the 60-day period has expired (without action), the sponsor can proceed with the process of buying annuities, paying lump sums, etc. Important caveat: sponsor might want to wait for D-letter, or might be required by plan document to wait for D-letter. Also, don't think you have to do everything at once. For example, buying annuities for existing retirees might be permissible under the plan at any time, so it might be helpful to get that out of the way.

Could be some apples and oranges. The PBGC "no action" period of 60 days means no actions related to plan termination. However, any normal plan operation should continue without variation, including initiating new retirements (for example). Think of it this way: during the 60-day review period (or later if extended), there is no plan termination.

Doesn't plan B have to do something also?

Just make sure the document carefully defines both, without any overlap? BTW, another payment event could be plan termination (with proper 409A deferral).

Is someone (the appointer) being sold something (the appointee)?

Who really paid for it? the plan? State Street? Perhaps SS is protecting itself, not necessarily the plan? or the sponsor's employees?

Peter, comment from the outside looking in. In several working environments, I've encountered business owners who are reluctant to care about the details or deadlines of plan administration. I've tried to enlist the aid of the accountant and/or attorney, on the assumption that the owner is likely to trust that person more than me as unbiased. In your case, you appear to be the attorney, so my hunch is that this owner will not treat a TPA with the same level of trust. That does not bode well for your situation. Sorry for the pessimistic outlook. That said, where is your client located? Perhaps a close geography might reveal some possible help.

There is no harm in asking why it's important for her to attend. If the response is "because I said so", that tells you all you need to know about the future.

Your recommendation is (probably) the best one. The ER should understand that rehiring a retiree is OK, but when it is done to "fake out" (not a technical term) the actual plan provision, that is getting very close to the word used above: "sham". Also, don't overlook a related word: "fraud". It is easy to avoid this problem by amending the plan. Never look for trouble, and especially not when the IRS is involved.

1. The EE does not make hiring decisions. If the ER wants to rehire a former/retired EE, that is the ER's decision. 2. A plan may be amended to permit distribution in-service if the EE is at or beyond NRA, but this is not a required plan provision. 3. A plan may be amended to permit distribution in-service if the EE is age 62+ (regardless of any early retirement definition), but this is not a requried plan provision.

Is this specified in the CBA (not the plan)?

Just in case you have not seen this, IRS Notice 2013-49, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-13-49.pdf. (Sorry, have not seen the tables posted in spreadsheet format yet.)

Don't forget vesting under partial termination. Don't forget about PBGC reportable events.

In these days of concern for personal security, why would anyone want to use the full SSN? As an example, IRC 414(p) defines the information required in a QDRO, including the mailing address of the alternate payee. This is a public document, so including mailing address might be a very bad thing in the case of domestic violence, or including SSN makes that available to the world. Therefore, everyone now understands that certain information can (should) omitted from public documents for privacy/security reasons. Now, extend this principle to your question. IMHO, best practice will avoid using the full SSN on a statement.

Well, parts of 401(a). See for example, 401(a)(5)(G), or 401(a)(10), 401(a)(24), 401(a)(26).

I'll try. Agree that the instructions do not answer your question. I also reviewed the Gray Book; nothing on point. Although it's been many years since I did this, my action would be to err on the side of caution and file the Form 5310A. Even if not needed, I don't think it would hurt.

Data as of 28-JUN-13 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 4.32 4.32 Aa 4.41 4.46 4.44 A 4.67 4.68 4.68 Baa 5.23 5.46 5.35 Avg 4.77 4.73 4.75 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.88 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.89 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.15

Hojo has the correct link to the PBGC book. However, notice two things: in the above quote, use of the word "include" see the statute (ERISA section 4021, Plans Covered). Section 4021©(2)(B) uses even broader language: "...includes, but is not limited to..." Probably the best action is to request a PBGC determination of coverage (page 7 of the above link).

Note, if there is no mention of the plan in the buy-sell agreement, default plan provisions may apply, and may be contrary to the desire expressed in the original post.