D Syrett

I found in an old set of Sal Tripodi's ERISA series: that the determination is made as of the first day of the plan year - which would lead to an answer agreeing with you. Any contrary answers from anyone?

No. The business owner remains.

At 1/1/2015 two active participants. One participant terminates in 2015 and is fully paid out in 2015 so that there is one remaining participant as of 12/31/2015.

Similar fact pattern / different question: I have a deemed burn at 4/1/2014 due to a 78% presumptive 2014 AFTAP. Are my balances for my 1/1/2014 val before the burn? (I would assume so.)

Aren't the assets in the table based on "actuarial" assets (ie., may not be market value) whereas the assets quoted later on at the end of the plan year are market value?

How about looking at projected benefits to see if the 415 problem goes away down the road? This doesn't get rid of the current issue but could make it somewhat moot.

I think the language in the original post is from the law on applicable interest rates as originally drafted. This option was apparently removed by PPA06. FWIW. It would seem that if a plan has such language it is now forced to select a PPA06 option - perhaps with the "greater of" one year transition rule.

What are the amounts? Isn't there a deminimus up to $25,000 return?

I have a husband and wife DB plan. Husband several years ago converted his PVAB to a 414k account under terms of the plan. So far so good. He is now coming upon his age 70 1/2 minimum required distribution point. Question: must his MRD be figured under the 401a9 annuity rules or can he use the account balance method?

My recollection is that the ratio is, from the prior year: (assets less COB less PFB)/ FT. So with your fact pattern, qrtlys would be required for 09.

FWIW, I had this fact pattern come up about 5 to 10 years ago on a proposed new DB plan. We ended up retaining a well-known pension attorney to wade through the facts. He ended up breaking the people into the two groups: employees of the business and househould employees - based and the facts and circumstances. In the end, the client elected not to proceed with the plan due to the employee costs projected.

By when is a plan required to amend for this change?

My understanding: You can waive becoming a particpant BEFORE getting into the plan but not after.

Seems that the more you amend the greater the risk of running afoul of the definitely determinable benefit requirements.

The "100%" problem is an EFAST problem according to Datair - that won't be fixed until 2009. You should be OK entering 99.99% for numbers > that, per EFAST per Datair.

Datair should be using the 2009 AMT. They have been alerted to this and intend to issue an update in the near future.

Sorry, I don't agree. For a DB plan, what's required is a stream of annual (or more frequent) payments, with the first one occurring on or before 4/1/08. There's no need to "double up" in the first year, as you would with a DC plan. IMO. ... S I agree w/ ScottR. In other words, under the annuity method the second and later payments are made on the anniversary of the first payment.

Agreed.

Have a client that has an individually designed DB plan document ("IDP"). Intends to move to a prototype when the amendment and restatement is done at a future date and has timely executed a Form 8905 noting that intent. The deadline to adopt the IRC 415 interim amendment was 9/15/08 for the IDP. The prototype timely adopted the 415 amendment at the sponsor level. Question: Does the client get the "benefit" of the timely prototype 415 amendment OR is this not the case and is the client a late adopter? (I think is answer is the later.)

What is the valuation date? Eg., If it is a beginning of year valuation, funding would be based on the the proprietor being alive at that point.

Thanks. I found a reworked example in SFAS 88.

I have a now-liquidated terminated DB plan that reverted about $40,000 to the employer. A final SFAS 87/88/158 report is now being requested of me and I am looking for some guidance on reflecting the revesion in the SFAS work. Anyone know of any links here or on the web that might be of help? Or have any quickie comments? Thanks.

Mike & Sieve, thanks for the replies. I will check Notice 2002-1. NHCE did not benefit in 08 but did in 07.

Trying to figure out if my client is exempt from the $1,000 Form 5310 user fee. Small DB plan terminated 7/31/08. Current participants are doctor, spouse. Only NHCE was paid a lump sum in May 2008. Form 5310 will be filed Aug 2008. Rule says you must have an NHCE "Participating" and that the determination is made at the time of the 5310 request. If I'm out of luck above, what if we argue that the NHCE is due a few more dollars of interest because the lump sum was figured based on 5/15/08 payment and actual payment was made at the end of May.