Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest merlin
Posted

Client wants to purchase an annuity to provide the payment. Would this be considered to be a payment "on behalf of the restricted employee" and therefore not allowed?

Guest merlin
Posted

Just to fill in the blanks, plan is underfunded and would not meet any of the exceptions.

Posted

Logically, that would not be permissible since the value of the plan would be depleted by the lump sum amount needed to purchase the annuity. That would defeat the whole point of keeping plan assets around in case the plan terminates with not enough assets. I am sure if you read the applicable cites like 1.401(a)(4)-5(b) and Rev. Rul. 92-76 that will confirm what I am saying.

"What's in the big salad?"

"Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."

Guest merlin
Posted

That's what I thought, and why I referred to the "on behalf of" wording. Thanks for the confirmation.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use