Jakyasar Posted September 26, 2021 Share Posted September 26, 2021 Hi A curiosity question. I am looking at an SB prepared by another actuary for a terminated plan. It was a calendar plan with val date as of end of year. SB was prepared with 9/30 year end (term date) which is fine. When SB was filed, this val date change was filed as a funding assumption change. Is this correct? Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effen Posted September 27, 2021 Share Posted September 27, 2021 I probably would not have classified that way. Plan is terminated, no harm, no foul. The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calavera Posted September 27, 2021 Share Posted September 27, 2021 Was val date changed to the beginning of the year? Also was 9/30 the plan termination date or the date of final distribution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakyasar Posted September 27, 2021 Author Share Posted September 27, 2021 No, val date was eoy to start with, they just made it as of plan termination date. Also, if they switched to boy because of termination only, is that considered a change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calavera Posted September 27, 2021 Share Posted September 27, 2021 In this case the plan year is still the calendar year. The plan year-end date remains the same and all filing and contribution due dates remain unchanged. The valuation date is still 12/31, but the minimum funding requirements are calculated as if it is a short plan year, prorating the normal cost and amortizations. The valuation date could be changed to the beginning of the year, and it is a method change ( rp-17-56.pdf (irs.gov) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Effen Posted September 30, 2021 Share Posted September 30, 2021 One small tweak, I don't think you would prorate the normal cost for the short plan year. The normal cost should reflect the anticipated accrual. If you used an elapsed time method for accruals, then proration might be appropriate, but if you used 1000 hour rule, the normal cost might be either a full year's accrual, or no accrual. The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice. 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