david rigby

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.

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)?