Effen

With IRS submission we generally say 9-12 months, if PBGC only probably talking < 6 months. That timing is from the date they tell us they want to terminate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/27/...-learn-whats-it

yes, it is possible, but the plan needs to contain the proper language. Typically the problem is properly defining the suspendable employement. There are fairly strick DOL rules for this involving the type of work and location which sometimes Trustees would rather ignore. I'm not positive, but I don't think it can be applied retroactively. I think that was the issue in the Heinz case? http://www.mwe.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/pu...0e5d340c97c.cfm

I have re-read the statutes and humbly withdraw my appeal.

If it is unclear you need to look at past precedents and ask the sponsor for an interpretation. Don't take the responsibility for interpreting a plan provision that isn't clear. Unless you are the plan sponsor, this shouldn't be your call. For me, it says to reduce for fractional years, that means interpolate in my book, but obviously, it isn't my decision.

Q1: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...od+change\ I'm calling a change in the month of determination an assumption change and I'm calling a change from segment rates to yield curve a method change.

Lance, Could you supply a reference to this bill that was passed? I see several bills that passed in the Senate, but haven't seen anything about a bill passing both houses or anything awaiting the President's signiture. (Other than on one of your other sites.)

Smash - good to have you aboard. I agree with everything you said, except that the Trustees do not control the assumptions used for the withdrawal determination. Like FASB assumptions, I think the withdrawal assumptions are completely in the hands of the Trustees. They can ask for direction from the actuary, but ultimately they can set them where ever they want. If they actuary doesn’t agree, he/she can caveat the calculations. I look at them the same way I look at FASB assumptions. That is, the actuary is just doing the calculations based on directives from the Trustees or Plan Sponsor.

To me that is still one of the open questions. The notice says "all participants" must receive the AFN, but it never defines as of what date. Forgetting about a plan termination for a second, what about an ongoing plan? All participants at the BOY or EOY? What about participants who terminated non-vested during the year, or even in the subsequent year, but before the notice is distributed? What about participants who die without a beneficiary? I think the safe answer is to give it to all participants as of the first day of the plan year, but I'm not going to argue with a client who wants to have a different interpretation.

You could always come to Pittsburgh - we are on the brink of having the worst road record IN BASEBALL HISTORY! Like my daddy always said, if you are going down, go down in with style. Regarding the "catholic" bear, I assumed you were using the word for it's actual meaning, to which I ask, is the bear catholic what? Is the bear catholic in agreement that he is smarter? Does the bear catholic care if Yogi was a catholic?

I heard Holland say many times the final AFTAP needs to match the SB, so I truncate in both places ... sometimes even using my real name.

Seems like you answered your own question - SB instructions say truncate. We're truncating like good little children.

May or may not be true depending on the 2008 ratio. I believe our esteemed congress gave one more year's "relief" on that provision.

I would say file without the audit. The return may get bounced for not having the audit report, but hopefully by then the audit will be done.

Thank you both. I think Bird makes a good point. Since the plan has excess assets, there is a potential reversion to the corporation and therefore it has some value, so it is hard to argue the stock is completly worthless. We'll probably prepare the full 5500, even though the Schedule I will show $0 for non-exempt assets.

No, it has a sponsor. The company still exists, but in name only. Lets say XYZ corp manufactures soap and sponsors a plan. At some point the sole owner of XYZ corp sells all of the assets used to make to soap to Zest, Inc. XYZ corp. still exists, but after all the bills are paid, all they have left is the plan. The owner of XYZ still maintains the plan, and the plan still holds some shares of XYZ corp in the trust. However, XYZ corp isn't worth anything because at this point, it is just a corporation whose sole asset is the plan. The plan is very overfunded, but the owner is content to sail around the world and doesn't care much about the plan and doesn't need the money, so it just sits, and we continue on with a plan full of vested terms and retirees. So, do the worthless XYZ corp shares preclude me from preparing an SF?

I have a plan where the plan sponsor went through an asset sale a number of years ago. The plan has been frozen forever and is significantly overfunded. The corporation that sponsors the plan doesn't really exist anymore, yet the plan still holds shares of the company. The auditor has determined the value of these company shares to be $0. Company stock would clearly be a non-eligible asset and therefore preclude the sponsor from filing a 5500-SF, however, the sares have no value. Since they have no value, do you think they would be permitted to file the SF?

They can both be right, however all you need to do is amend the plan to allow for a lump sum option (along with an immediate annuity) upon plan termination.

Why would Shirely know where Mike's stuff is? (Sorry, just couldn't resist. OK, back to AFTAP's and SBs)

I know Charlie is still in business. Maybe you should just call him directly.

If a client elects funding relief under PRA10 for 2009, do you think that should be marked as a method change in the SB? I think not, but I'm trying to figure out how to alert the IRS that they took the relief. I will designate it on an attachment where I illustrate the amortization bases, but I'm wondering if I should do something more? This client made a formal election to accept the relief.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...arterly+penalty

401(a)(17) always applied to the benefit formula, but not always to the 415(b) limits. It really only mattered if the person's NRD was later than 68 or 69 when the 415(b)(1)(A) limit would exceed the 401(a)(17) limit. In the past, as long as your actual comp was > 415(b)(1)(A) limit, you could have the (1)(A) benefit. Then the IRS came up with Regs that said your 415(b) limit could never exceed the 401(a)(17) limit, effectively cutting the maximum benefit for older participants. I don't recall all the sites and dates, but this change was fairly recent...maybe last 5 years or so?? So, keep in mind that the most comp you could have ever used for benefit purposes was the 401(a)(17) limit of that particular year and therefore this person's average compensation for benefit accrual purposes would be based on the average of the limits in effect during those years. That said, if the benefit formula permitted him to accrue a benefit greater than the 401(a)(17) limit, he could have had it, assuming his less than his actual comp and the 415(b)(1)(A) limit.

I think there are situations where you could have a 2nd annuity starting date, for example if the benefit is split due to PPA benefit restrictions, but generally once someone makes their election, based on the available options, they don't get a second bite at the apple. If the plan offered a new payment form, generally it would not be offered to those who already elected a different form of payment. If you gave them a 2nd bite, it would lead to adverse selection issues. Maybe if you gave an example of your concern, you might get more responses.

Since the particpants know how much of their package goes into the pension plan, they often consider that to be their contribution, which in a way it is, but it is treated as employer dollars.