DL1215 Posted March 14, 2018 Share Posted March 14, 2018 Does anyone know what the relevant comparison is for applying the 5% rule to the merger of defined benefit plans in the current year? Under the regulations, a merger has a "material effect" if it results or is projected to result in an increase or decrease of at least 5% in the value of assets or liabilities form the valuation date of the notice year. I expect that most mergers would increase 5% of the value of both the assets and liabilities, and therefore require an explanation. But where the plan's funding level is not changed before and after the merger (for example, the merger is between two similarly funded plans), is an explanation still required? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 Just my opinion, I would include an explanation in the AFN, whether or not the funded status changes in a significant manner. It's like chicken soup. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XTitan Posted March 16, 2018 Share Posted March 16, 2018 4 hours ago, david rigby said: It's like chicken soup. It couldn't hurt? - There are two types of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data sets... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL1215 Posted March 19, 2018 Author Share Posted March 19, 2018 Thanks, we suggested including it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now