Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

You made me question my memory and go look it up. You are not correct. Here is a blurb I found: 5.Historical note: exception for Form 5500-C/R filer in pre-1999 plan years. An employer that filed Form 5500-C/R in pre-1999 plan years, using the "R" filing, could furnish a copy of the annual return in lieu of the SAR. See DOL Reg. §2520.104b-10(b). Alternatively, the administrator could furnish a written notice stating that a copy of the annual return could be obtained, without charge, by filing a written request for such copy. This notice could be posted on a bulletin board, if it was reasonably calculated to ensure disclosure to the plan participants. DOL Reg. §2520.104b-10, as amended on April 19, 2000, reflects the elimination of this exception.

You heard wrong.

All I know is that I miss Ritchie. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showuser=14310 I just noticed on personal info: "gender not set" --- I couldn't agree more.

Back in the 5500 C/R days, I recall that C years called for an SAR and R years called for a Disclosure of Information (or something like that). When that ended though, it was SAR every year. I don't know of any shortcuts to this requirement.

We asked the IRS that very question. They stated they wanted information as far back as GUST, meaning in your case to submit the GUST document and all subsequent amendments/documents. If you had a GUST determination letter, then only amendments after that point are needed. -- typo --

Both a-orgs and b-orgs require ownership between the orgs and the FSO. Management groups do not, so I will leave that for you to explore. Watch out for the 414(o) avoidance catch-all though, which is why you should take my advice with a pillar of salt and probably run this by an attorney or apply for an IRS ruling if there is any doubt.

No.

The IRS is already aware. My colleague wants something to show the IRS it's really ok just to treat it as a DB contribution.

Does anyone have any experience or know of case law where an intended DB contribution went to the wrong place? I have a situation presented by a colleague where a terminating DB plan paid out the assets. The owner's amount was short, so they funded the contribution to make up his shortfall many months later, but by the due date of the tax return for the year of termination. The problem is that the plan account was closed at the time of final funding, so instead of making the contribution to the plan, it was made directly to his IRA. Now the plan's under audit and my colleague wants to find a way to get this straightened out.

Tell Shirley to fly to Phoenix. Then I can recommend a good lawyer.

So you take pleasure in the pain of others? If you had uromysitisis poisoning, would you want others to have it to? Public urination is a crime!

I was just curious what most people normally see with regard to DB QDRO's. Let's say a participant was married before joining a DB plan. He has X years of participation at date of dissolution. He has Y years left until he reaches the plan's normal retirement age. It's a final average pay plan, meaning his ultimate retirement benefit is based on his highest Z year average compensation. I had always seen the alternate payee's benefit based on the average compensation and years of participation at the time of dissolution with no consideration of future increases in compensation or additional years of service. However, I ran accross a situation recently where that wasn't the case. Instead the DRO accounted for any increases in compensation and the ultimate annuity paid to the alternate payee would increase correspondingly. I don't work with many QDRO's so I was curious what others have seen?

Yes to both questions.

There are some subtle nuances to this. First, it's §179 deduction claimed. Second, you also reduce by unreimbursed partnership expenses claimed. Third, also reduce by oil and gas properties claimed. The last two are fairly rare from my experience.

All that is saying under the annuity payment method is that the additional benefits that become vested are considered additional accruals for purposes of increasing the RMD for future years. The increase works exactly the same as if the person had an increased benefit due to additional service or higher compensation, i.e. the increase applies to prospective payments. There is no requirement to payout the payments missed on top of the current payments, which is different than the account balance method, which does require make up of the payments missed.

Since 101(f) says, "...each plan participant and beneficiary...", I agree with SoCal. Participant for PBGC premium determination is a specified definition that only applies for that purpose.

Isn't that what md said?

I don't think so. For example, let's say a new DB plan is set up with 3-year cliff vesting that excludes service prior to the effective date and has a retirement age of 65/5. The 80 year-old owner has no vested benefit after years one and two. Are you suggesting that person needs to take payments in year 4 to make up for the lack of payments taken in years 1-3?

Well as discussed in the referenced post and the post referenced in the referenced post, it's not that clear.

Your last sentence is very strange considering this post: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=42328&hl= and your contribution to it.

So as Andy mentions he is doing this to lower the MVAR. I suppose if he has det letters so be it, but I would not be inclined to force such manipulations of the numbers. Of course this too will increase the amount of the annuity optional forms of benefit. I know I have never seen an annuity taken when a lump sum is offered, but in this case, with such askew numbers, someone could take the annuity and really screw the plan. And they will be aware of the value differences with the relative value disclosure. I see a problem a-brewin'. I have some plans at 5% interest crediting rate. I not overly thrilled I did that with the warning issued in the proposed CB regs, but I am not losing sleep. I have to think 5% will be okay in the final regs. Inherently I like a flat rate because of the consitency it provides if needing to pass general testing or if 404(a)(7) is an issue. For those clients, I have gone into some details, explained what's in the proposed regs, discussed why I think a flat rate is best here, set them up at 4% normally and warned them in writing. If they don't have those issues, perhaps a variable rate, like the 30-year Treasury Rate is best. I still believe 5% or under will be fine. Did I say that already? I always like to match AE to the interest crediting rate. It is just easiest. I like either quarterly or monthly interest credits just from a fairness standpoint. Obviously annual interest credits are easiest to deal with but I don't like the idea of someone's CB remaining static for a year.

Can you be more specific as to what the subsidized death benefit is?

Your first option and the third option are the same. A question like this was posed a few months ago and it boils down to whether or not you treat earned income as ratably earned during the year or in one chunk at the end of the year. I strongly opine that the former is correct unless there is some way to truly calculate earned income at a given point in time during the year.

Sieve, can you enlighten me on your last paragraph? I thought that aggregating for ADP purposes would be aggregation under 401(a)(4) and correspondingly under 410(b), which would cause both plans to be in a required aggregation group.

Two deadlines to consider for when the contribution must be made: 1) due date of the company's tax return 2) date necessary to meet minimum funding. The answer to 1 will depend on the methodology in which they are deducting contributions, plan year beginning in tax year, ending in tax year or a combo of the two.