I s t 2000 r pdf

This revenue procedure does not affect the standards that will be applied in reviewing an application for a suspension of benefits under IRC Section e 9. This revenue procedure also extends to October 30, , the deadline for submitting on-cycle applications for opinion and advisory letters for pre-approved defined benefit plans for the plans' second six-year remedial amendment cycle.

The IRS will accept applications through April 30, Temporary one-year pilot program giving administrative relief to plan administrators and plan sponsors of certain retirement plans from IRC Sections e and penalties for failing to timely comply with the annual reporting requirements of IRC Sections e , , and This is the annual EP determination letter revenue procedure.

Corrected by Announcement , I. Announcement , , I. This revenue procedure sets forth the procedures of the IRS for issuing opinion and advisory letters for IRC section b pre-approved plans.

Must be used to prepare current and prior year information returns filed beginning January 1, , and received through FIRE by December 31, Provides guidance on changes to the Internal Revenue Service's letter-forwarding program.

The IRS will no longer forward letters on behalf of plan sponsors or administrators of retirement plans or qualified termination administrators QTAs of abandoned plans under the Department of Labor's Abandoned Plan Program who are attempting to locate missing plan participants and beneficiaries.

It requires plan participants and other interested persons to receive a notice in connection with the letter ruling request and provides procedures for the IRS to receive and consider comments relating to the ruling request from interested persons. This rev. The second six-year remedial amendment cycle for pre-approved defined contribution plans began on February 1, and ends on January 31, IRS is accepting opinion and advisory letter applications for pre-approved defined contribution plans for the second six-year remedial amendment cycle.

Procedures for multiemployer pension plan sponsors to request an extension of an amortization period. This revenue procedure modifies Rev. This revenue procedure also modifies Rev. Section of WRERA permits a plan to revoke the election to treat the plan as being funded at the prior year's certified level with the approval of the Service.

This revenue procedure provides that the Service will automatically approve a revocation request if certain requirements are met, including a deadline for making a decision to revoke; notice to employees and other interested parties; and consistent treatment of participating employers during the plan year. The revenue procedure provides special rules for the automatic approval of revocation requests that are made pursuant to the resolution of arbitration.

The revenue procedure also states that the Service will consider revocation requests that do not satisfy the standard for automatic approval if the requests are submitted in accordance with our usual ruling letter procedures. This revenue procedure updates and expands the scope of Rev. This revenue procedure relaxes certain restrictions that now apply to the issuance of opinion and advisory letters for new pre-approved plans under Rev. Those restrictions effectively limit the ability of sponsors of pre-approved plans such as banks, insurance companies and law firms to apply for opinion and advisory letters for new plans after March 31, , and also limit the ability of adopting employers to rely on the letters issued for new plans.

This revenue procedure is an update of Rev. This revenue procedure supersedes Rev. This revenue procedure describes a method whereby certain employers may seek a ruling as to the acceptability of their substitute mortality tables. This revenue procedure clarifies, modifies, and supersedes Rev. This revenue procedure modifies certain aspects of Rev. This revenue procedure contains model amendments that may be used by public schools in creating or amending their section b plans and also contains certain transition relief.

This revenue procedure provides safe harbors in determining the fair market value for certain conversions of an annuity from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This revenue procedure modifies and supersedes Rev. This procedure provides guidance on the suspension of benefits following Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. This procedure modifies and supersedes Rev. This procedure implements the Service's staggered remedial amendment determination letter process for qualified plans.

This revenue procedure provides interim guidelines on the proper method of valuing insurance contracts. This revenue procedure extends the remedial amendment period for certain disqualifying provisions.

This revenue procedure pertains to the taxation of benefits from a defined benefit plan to a non-resident alien. This revenue procedure implements section of EGTRRA which pertains to certain waivers of the day rollover rule. This revenue ruling extends the application date for certain pre-approved plans to request EP determination letters.

This revenue procedure amplifies Rev. This revenue procedure is the basic letter ruling and information procedure for the EP and EO functions. This revenue procedure sets forth certain relief provisions for Professional Employee Organizations leasing organizations. This revenue procedure extends the time for making certain amendments to certain qualified plans. This revenue procedure lists a number of time-sensitive acts, including approximately 32 employee benefit issues, that may be postponed by reason of service in a combat zone or a Presidentially-declared disaster.

This revenue procedure extends the remedial amendment period for making EP determination letter requests. More In Retirement Plans. January - Present Rev. January — December Rev. January - December Rev. January - December Revenue Procedure —2, I. Revenue Procedure —4, I. Revenue Procedure , I. Importantly, analyzing the two dimensions simultaenously in a regression framework allows you to interpret your results in a manner that is conceptually aligned with Bartholomew's four attachment prototypes e.

The table below is designed to illustrate the way different patterns of regression coefficients e. Regression coefficients General interpretation Beta 1 for Anxiety Beta 2 for Avoidance 0 0 This pattern of coefficients indicates that attachment is unrelated to the dependent variable. As such, the more avoidant people are with respect to attachment, the higher their scores on the dependent variable.

With respect to Bartholomew's prototypes, this pattern of coefficients suggests that highly fearful and dismissing people i. As such, the more avoidant people are with respect to attachment, the lower their scores on the dependent variable. As such, the more anxious people are with respect to attachment, the higher their scores on the dependent variable. With respect to Bartholomew's prototypes, this pattern of coefficients suggests that highly preoccupied and fearful people i.

As such, the more anxious and avoidant people are with respect to attachment, the higher their scores on the dependent variable. With respect to Bartholomew's prototypes, this pattern of coefficients suggests that highly fearful people i. Prototypically dismissing and preoccupied people are somewhere in-between. When both coefficients are positive, the effect is driven by both dimensions.

The combination of these two dimensions is sometimes referred to as the "insecure vs. As such, the more anxious and less avoidant people are with respect to attachment, the higher their scores on the dependent variable. With respect to Bartholomew's prototypes, this pattern of coefficients suggests that highly preoccupied people i. Prototypically secure and fearful people are somewhere in-between. When the coefficients exhibit this pattern, the effect is driven by both dimensions.

This particular combination of the two dimensions is sometimes referred to as the "hyperactiving vs. As such, the more anxious people are with respect to attachment, the lower their scores on the dependent variable. With respect to Bartholomew's prototypes, this pattern of coefficients suggests that highly secure and dismissing people i. As such, the more avoidant and less anxious people are with respect to attachment, the higher their scores on the dependent variable. With respect to Bartholomew's prototypes, this pattern of coefficients suggests that highly dismissing people i.

This particular combination of the two dimensions is sometimes referred to as the "deactivating vs. As such, the more anxious and avoidant people are with respect to attachment, the lower their scores on the dependent variable.

With respect to Bartholomew's prototypes, this pattern of coefficients suggests that highly secure people i. When both coefficients are negative, the effect is driven by both dimensions. The combination of these two dimensions is sometimes referred to as the "secure vs. Note: It is also possible to test the interaction between attachment-related anxiety and avoidance, although, in my experience, the interaction rarely explains much variance in dependent variables. It is necessary to include the interaction term if you are predicting a pattern of results that cannot be modeled as an additive combination of the two dimensions.

For example, if you predict that highly secure people will be high on variable X and that highly dismissing, fearful, and preoccupied people will be low on variable X, it is necessary to include an interaction term to characterize such a pattern because, by definition, this pattern cannot be represented fully as an additive combiation of anxiety and avoidance. What about security? I want to know how secure a person is, not how anxious or avoidant he or she is.

Why doesnt the ECR-R assess security? In Bartholomew's framework the theoretical model that organizes the ECR-R , security is represented as the "low" ends of these two dimensions. In other words, a prototypical secure individual does not worry about whether his or her partner will abandon him or her low anxiety and is comfortable opening up to and depending on others low avoidance.

If you were to fold the two-dimensions into a one-dimensional space that captured security, the theoretically appropriate way to do so would be to average the anxiety and avoidance scores to tap the dimension that runs at a degree angle across the two-dimensional space. The secure end of this dimension would be low anxiety, low avoidance security ; the insecure end would be high anxiety, high avoidance fearful-avoidance. Combining the two dimensions in this way to create a single dimension, however, would collapse across the variation in preoccupied to dismissing attachment.

Q: I have heard that there is an on-line measure based on the ECR-R where students can take the ECR and have their scores on the two dimensions plotted for them. The site also provides information on attachment theory more generally, and can be used for educational purposes, or just for fun or both.

Important note added Sept I have recently learned that some people are "scoring" paper-and-pencil versions of the ECR-R by entering their participants' responses into the web page and allowing the web page to score the responses.

Please note that the web page automatically randomizes the order of the questions. In other words, each time you load the web page, the items will appear in a different order. If you're simply entering in responses without attending to the order in which the items appear, you will get useless results.

Also, sometimes the page only uses some items from the ECR-R; other items are rotated in on an experimental basis. The online test is not meant to be a mechanism by which other researchers can assess attachment for their research purposes.

It is an educational tool and one that we use for experimental purposes to collect basic data on item functioning. A: We are not sure if there are any advantages at this point. In our article, we were using Item Response Theory to illustrate how theoretical inferences about important developmental issues can vary as a function of the item response properties of the measurement scale--properties that researchers rarely consider. Our analyses convinced me Fraley that the attachment scales suffer from some critical problems i.

We believe that future research must attempt to assess the secure region with more precision. We hope people will continue to improve the measurement of adult attachment patterns. Document last updated: Nov Updated 'norms' section. July 23, ; Dec 10, ; Dec Included some new clafications and the Excel link on Feb 28, Thanks to Kathy Carnelley for spotting a typo.

I'm afraid that I will lose my partner's love. I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me. I often worry that my partner doesn't really love me. I often wish that my partner's feelings for me were as strong as my feelings for him or her. I worry a lot about my relationships.

When my partner is out of sight, I worry that he or she might become interested in someone else. When I show my feelings for romantic partners, I'm afraid they will not feel the same about me. I rarely worry about my partner leaving me. My romantic partner makes me doubt myself. I do not often worry about being abandoned. I find that my partner s don't want to get as close as I would like.

Sometimes romantic partners change their feelings about me for no apparent reason. My desire to be very close sometimes scares people away. I'm afraid that once a romantic partner gets to know me, he or she won't like who I really am. It makes me mad that I don't get the affection and support I need from my partner.

I worry that I won't measure up to other people. I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down. I feel comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on romantic partners. I am very comfortable being close to romantic partners. I don't feel comfortable opening up to romantic partners. I prefer not to be too close to romantic partners. I get uncomfortable when a romantic partner wants to be very close.

I find it relatively easy to get close to my partner. It's not difficult for me to get close to my partner. I usually discuss my problems and concerns with my partner. It helps to turn to my romantic partner in times of need. I tell my partner just about everything. I talk things over with my partner.

I am nervous when partners get too close to me. I feel comfortable depending on romantic partners. I find it easy to depend on romantic partners. It's easy for me to be affectionate with my partner.