Hojo

Personal opinions without going into specifics - The state of limbo left by the decision of the SCOTUS is going to be a MESS! Each case will be dependent on the state in which the participants live and whether that state recognizes their marriage or not and potentially the time periods they lived invarious states. Basically, to simplify things, I think we should abide by the most conservative approach that benefits the participants which is to assume that any spouse is a recognized spouse under the law.

http://www.pbgc.gov/docs/smallbusinessguide.pdf "Professional service employers are firms owned or controlled by professional individuals who principally provide professional services. "Professional individuals" include physicians, dentists, chiropractors, osteopaths, optometrists, other licensed practitioners of the healing arts, lawyers, public accountants, public engineers, architects, draftspersons, actuaries, psychologists, social or physical scientists, and performing artists."

Definitely no. The benefits are still determinable based on a set formula no matter if there are excess assets or not.

Niece.

Niece.

I think the original idea was that this was supposed to be addressed in the funding policy of the plan. Of course, it rarely is since the funding policy is generally written as a generic sentance saying that they intend to fund the minimum plus a discretionary additional amount to maintain the funded status of the plan. More government fun!!! We didn't fund for years and now that we actually have to fund those amounts it's too much...well ok, we'll just use falsely high interest rates to help you fund. Oh, and government plans aren't subject to the same rules as everyone else.....ugh.

How does the plan define years of service? Is it based on hours, elapsed time?

I think step one is to contact the Plan Sponsor of the 403(b) and ask for a copy of the spousal consent form. It's not the banks responsibility or the IRA's, but the 403(b) Plan's. If you are the confirmed spouse when she terminated, they have to give it to you. If they won't return your phone calls, go to their office.

MAP-21 is the funding basis so you are not underfunded by more than $50 million. Don't try to make it more difficult than it needs to be.

So the easy answer is yes, 60.04 > 60

Disability benefits themselves are not subject to 411(d)(6), but not sure in regards to impact on vesting and accruals......

The accrued benefit at Age 65 is dependent on 417(e) factors so it can still fluctuate. I think you simply need to put the caveat in Benefit Committment Form that the amount of the benefit may be different due to the timing of the payment, gain or loss in the plan's assets or a change in government mandated interest rates. Just CYA and you'll be ok.

I agree....it's stupid, but I agree.

Have you ever heard of Google? There are 500 calculators free on the internet. https://www.pensionbenefits.com/calculators/cal_main.jsp?sub_item=aecal

The 110% is based on the full value of the benefit. The bifurcation technically happens after the benefit is elected.

There's definitely a lot that you're misunderstanding here...You need to sit down with an actuary to understand how the 3% rule works, how your plan works, how early retirement factors work, what an accrued benefit means.....lots of things. I suggest waiting to talk with the PAL until you proceed with anything.

I'd be very interested to see how this doesn't pass the 3% rule.....

If the plans AFTAP has been certified for the year above 80%, then yes, you can pay out the whole lump sum.

I'm fairly certian that MAP-21 doesn't address 404 at all and therefore the max calculations haven't changed (ie, you use pre MAP-21 rates).

^This. If the plan is qualified and passes nondiscrimination testing, then as long as the plan is being administered properly they are not doing anything unfair. Now, whether you believe the background plan design is discriminatory is a matter that could be eventually taken up, but that is an entirely different case.

The Towers estimated rates of 4.72%, 6.09% and 6.78% weren't too far off from the actual of 4.94%, 6.15% and 6.76%. Impressive.

Anyone hear anything new through the grapevine?

I have rarely seen any pension consulting firm make a contribution recommendation for a sole proprietor without looking at the implications of 415 limitations and overfunding issues in the future years. Yes, I would ask for 2nd and even 3rd opinions, of course I would also expect you to pay another consultant for those opinions. People on this board are extremely helpful when it comes to issues that should be considered and what you should ask your pension consulatant so that you can have all of the facts. As the facts stand, your plan is overfunded on a cash basis. You may already be running into a 415 limit issue. Provide your actuary with an estimate of your future income and ask them to prepare an expected contribution stream through 2020. Talk with them about how they expect to project the Interest Rate assumptions (since we don't even know 2013 rates yet). Ask them to show you a range of expectations and work with them from there.

I have two questions along the same vein: 1) If the plan defines preretirement act equiv as 6% no mortality and post-retirement as 5% with some table with NRD age 65, actual retirement at age 66, how would you define the increase? I've got arguments for APR65 (5% with mort) x 1.06/APR66 (5%with mort) and APR65 (5% with mort) x 1.05/APR66 (5%with mort). 2) If the plan defines the late retirement actuarial increase as occurring at the end of every plan year and someone is retiring mid-plan year after NRD, do you still have to apply the act equiv at the actual ret date or only the increased benefit to the end of the prior plan year? (IE do the regs specify enough to overrule the plan?)

Yes, this is pretty standard. The QJSA is always considered the most valuable because, if not, then the QJSA fails 401(a). 417(e) just threw a screw into things, but I'm almost positive the IRS took the position that the QJSA trumps it in terms of testing.