rcline46

No - I am lost in the 60's. At least you remember there was something like that. Actually, it is a takeover plan (what else) with no HCEs and no owners, but does have officers that don't make much. Old, stuck relays in my head started functioning and some dim lightbulb when off. Guess its time to turn off.

The most fundamental question - was it a stock purchase or an asset purchase?

If you mean Medigap Insurance, United Health through AARP is one of the best, including their drug (Part D) plan. If your health insurance broker is honest, he/she might be able to get information for your area.

This is where I get to say I am sooooooo ooolllddd that I remember things that never were, maybe. I seem to recall that at some time in the distant past, if NO officer made over the dollar limit, then the highest paid officer was considered key. However, reseaching 1.416, 416, and the Erisa Outline Book, I see no mention of this. So do I chalk this up to Fawlty Towers, that is faulty memory or did it change when I wasn't looking? Maybe this should be posted under humor.

Thank you. Just what I was looking for.

I can find references that show US Qualified plans of US Corporations can accrue benefits based on foreign income (for US persons) even if paid in the local currency. What I have not located are any code sections or regulations addressing this issue. I have spent over two hours on BNA trying to use the search function to find this. Of course, I have trouble with ALL search engines - even GOOGLE! Does anyone have a clue as to what code section(s) might cover this? Thanks all.

The PBGC told me the 5 year average is true for projecting to retirement. Convert at plan specified rates to an annuity. The annuity goes on the Benefit Commitment Forms, and the present value of the annuity, not the Hypothetical Balance, is the liability for the 500 forms. Guess I will attach an explanation to the 500 forms. IRS liability - hmmm, 6088, hmmmm. Probably use the same numbers even though the payouts won't match. Oh well.

First - DB plans pay a benefit, so ask yourself what authority is there to reduce an accrued benefit? Second - if you take money from a benefit payment have you in fact reduced an accrued benefi? Once you answer these questions, you will have found your answer.

MP funds are not available for hardship. That is why pension plans do not have hardship provisions.

Hi all. Starting a termination of a 5 year old CB plan covered by PBGC. Our first CB termination. Hard freeze is done. We expect audits by both IRS and PBGC once they know (due to their lack of experience) Looking for anyone who wants to share traps and pitfalls. Wondering how to fill out the PBGC Benefit Commitment form since 'monthly accrued benefit' is not what is guaranteed. Thanks for all suggestions and condolences!

Disability implies a disability termination. Otherwise, what is meant by a 'disability withdrawal'? It is not one of the enumerated distributable events in the code.

Go back and re-read your final 415 amendments. It will explain what to do.

Exactly how would the 20 basis points for the entire fund be directed to just the holding account? I don't think ING can separate it and so charge it.

I can hear the auditor now - 'the pay and deferrals you used for year x are higher than the W-2 and in year x+1 lower than the W-2. Please explain" Or Who is going to remember next year to reduce the deferrals and compensation by the add back? (sort of like the 'last few weeks rule') And as mentioned earlier - is the election in place and signed by the actual plan year end?

Search the board for 'real estate'. Get a proven ERISA attorney, and if the client still insists, charge a lot.

I am still in the dark as to how you can take W-2 income from 2013 and make a 2012 deferral for an active employee. From th OP this is not an SE emplooyee or income. Accounting wise, the bonus can be accrued for the corporate return, but plan wise I am not aware of anything that lets you do this. If there is I would love to be proven wrong with a cite to the regulation permitting this.

You must follow the document rules for allocation of forfeitures. I doubt you can avoid allocating to the OEE. However, if a plan with each participant in their own group, you might accomplish this, but you still have to pass both 410(b) and 401(a)(4) while following the document rules.

There are Top Heavy issues as well as ongoing contribution requirements. They are better off terminating the plan.

Did another person adopt the child? Did the father legally release his parental rights? If so, then I think family attribution is broken. (Just like an adopted child gains rights). Tough questions to ask, but necessary. Just a name change is not enough.

put the custom schedule in the document and PPA, but since PPA wants to override the doc, the SPD will be ok, and the restated doc will be ok so you don't have to resign the PPA. Won't hurt if you do, but the later date on the doc will override the PPA amendment in fact.

From (a fading) memory - PPA is AFTER the EGTRRA restatement, and the PPA amendment defaults to the 6 year graded. The PPA amendment is an evergreen amendment - good until replaced. So even if you restate the document, PPA stays in effect. Therefore you need to say yes to PPA, put in the desired vesting schedule, but don't bother to reprint it, just the document and the SPD and you will be ok. I sometimes wonder about the decisions made by the Corbel document designers.

I agree if the document said the match was per payroll, it would be $500 in your example.

I disagree with both of your answers. Match is 33% of deferrals up to 6% of pay on an annual basis. So 6% of $45,000 is $2,700. I would place the match at $900. (Based on the information above). Now if the document were to state that the match were on deferrals WHILE ELIGIBLE FOR THE MATCH (emphasis added) then I would agree with the $500 number. However without some qualifier I don't think you can tie the deferrals to the 'while eligible' period.

Your assumption for the $20,000 for 2013 and 2014 are correct. As to the LS in 2015 there is some debate. In my opinion the participant is still owed the LS value of the $20,000 Life Annuity, but at his then current age, based on the 417(e) rates and mortality table then in effect. Nice, clean, neat, simple.

And the person who chose elapsed time should be forever barred from practicing/advising! Integrating elapsed time with the the 5 year break rules from REA is not very pretty. The vesting schedule in the plan may also play a role here. Does the plan have a 1 year hold out? If not 2/3/2003 entry. If yes then 2/16/04. I forgot the rehire in 12 mos from TERM date rehire rule. Not only that, it seems that the person has accumulated a bunch of vesting service. Thank you Tom.