Andy the Actuary

Been through this and the legal beagles contend that $20,0000 payment(s) is(are) ineligible for IRA rollover.

Mike, start here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/40314-60-day-notice-of-intent-to-terminate/ Conclusion: PBGC conducted audit (and found no errors). But the employer incurred service fees on a plan that had maybe $800K in assets. If you still have questions, give me a call.

My caution is that we followed to the letter a procedure published on the PBGC website. The PBGC responded that's not what we meant even though our facts and circumstances were consistent. So, you may obtain an informal opinion but will you be issued a document that you can stand behind in a post-distribution audit, which is likely where any issues would be raised?

it would be appreciated (and the intent is not sarcasm) if those who advocate running this situation by the PBGC would articulate just how you would accomplish this. There appears to be no provision on the PBGC 500 or EA-S specifically or even provision to add additional information. Typically, you file the 500/EA-S and you receive rubber-stamp approval. Would the PBGC issue a letter on this matter and if so, how long might it take. We all know that movie mogul Louis B. Mayer quipped, "A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's printed on."

So, presumably by virtue of family aggregation, you could have more than 2 "Substantial Owners?"

Get ready for the fun. Suppose the September 2012 24-month average rates persist, we will have for 2014: 4.45, 5.64, and 6.23. In 2015, 3.96, 5.14, 6.04 (third 24-month segment rate), and for 2016, 3.49, 4.92 (second 24-month segment rate), and 6.04 (third 24-month segment rate). We're likely on-target for 2014 -- the good news being for the first time since who knows when we'll be able to reasonably estimate 2014 liabilities. In short, if interest rates stay down, Congress will have imposed a lot of overhead to accomplish far short of its intent.

I believe the student once went into a confectionary and asked the proprietor how much did the candy stitting atop the counter in glass jars cost. The proprietor told the student, "You can have all you want for a dollar." The student thought a moment and then siad, "I'll take two dollars' worth."

It would also seem possible if there is a specific participant in mind to be able to define an employee class that the Plan would no longer cover. This would have to be nondiscriminatory and all the coverage and participation tests would need to be satisfied.

Spoke just yesterday with an actuary from Towers Watson. They have no inkling.

Wonderful questions that relate to more useless information. It does make you love Congress's punitive action requiring pre-Map21 information to be shown when adoption of MAP21 is involuntary (starting in 2013). You may want to ask will the PBGC (or is it DOL or IRS) define what is meant by MRC. You suggest that it takes into account the credit balances. That may or may not be the case and may or may not ever be known what is the case. I take the easier approach and rely upon Sungard Relius to embrace the definitive interpretation in their AFN software.

So, your doctor has advised you and you don't like the advice. Understandable. Suggestion is to seek a second opinion but not from a newspaper column.

Mimeograph??? You mean the aluminum cyllinder to which you affixed a purple gelatin sheet and then sniffed the resulting product dry?

Agree with Mr. Rigby. You'd be hard-pressed to negotiate with the IRS based upon information published on a public bulletin board.

Yes, I, all of them.

I listened in on the conference. See my corresponding post. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/52172-restrictions-on-lump-sum-distributions-to-hces/

The attached may provide an answer though not necessarily the one you were looking for. Now, your question becomes did the Plan terminate at at 12:01am or 11:59PM. Since on the 5500 you will report that the Plan terminated January 1, an error report may be generated if no SB is attached. What compounds this issue is the right/hand left hand. Namely, you might have it on reliable government authority that the SB is not needed, that is no valuation is needed. Then, you file the 5500 and it the filing kicks out because no SB is attached. IRS Rev Rul 79-237.PDF

Given the facts and circumstances, yes. $205,000 applicable to limitation years ending in 2013.

Facts: An employee with 50 years of service accrued a normal retirement benefit of $30,000 on his NRD 1/1/2006. The employees High 3 Year Comp for 415 is $50,000. The Plan does not suspend benefits but rather gives an actuarial increase. The actuarially increased pension is $60,000. Just to complicate matters, the plan offers a COLA and and provides that lump sums shall assume a 3% increase. Please comment on whether you agree or disagree. 1. Since the employee is not separated from service the 415(b)(1)(B) limit is not adjusted. 2. The Plan while required to actuarially increase benefits, cannot beyond $50,000 because of 415. 3. When the employee terminates, the lump sum cannot include provision for the COLA since in theory you would be providing for benefits that exceed the 415 limit. 4. I believe a way out or semi-out of this mess might be to amend the Plan to provide for a retroactive annuity start date. I left out all of the good stuff, which is not relevant to the questions, but begs for sympathy: The COLA caps at 50% of the initial benefit and the standard form of payment is a 10C&L but the COLA applies to the actual payment form. To make matters worse, the benefit is payable at the end of the month. The actual retirement date is the first day of the month except for postponed retirement (after 65) in which case it is the last day of the month.

"Treasury can tap a range of federal funds that benefit government employees — most critically, the money-market fund in which many federal employees invest as part of their thrift savings plans."

Yup. Sure would like to get a one year CD that pays 3.50%

Would suggest typo. Looks like second segment rate.

Has anyone an inkling of when the IRS may issue the MAP-21 interest rates for 2013? I have a couple clients who will need to know these rates to perform the 110% test under 401(a)(4) for lump sum distributions to HCEs. While I can estimate, the obvious preference is to use the exact rates.

Is is amusing to learn from IMDB.com and other sources that Mr. T (Lawrence Tureaud) stands but 5'10" which is a wee shorter than this imposing persona suggests. Perhaps he was misnamed and should have been called "Mr. t" ?

I think I can sum up all of the comments: You can't practice billiards on a ping-pong table and hope to become competent at Scrabble.

Will plan sponsor authorize you to sign in his behalf?