Effen

That is correct, but they aren't due until 4/30/09, which should be possible, but not necessary easy to do.

prior post I don't think the 2008 PBGC premium includes the 2008 Accrual, so you should be able to determine the 2008 premium even though you haven't done the 2008 valuation. You will most likely need to run your (12/31/07 - ie 1/1/2008) numbers using PPA assumptions. Last thing I heard about technical corrections was - don't look for anything until after the elections, and even then maybe not until 2009. (Why do we pay these people?)

Are you implying that by using different assumptions you could actually get different answers? And that someone might skew the assumptions to produce an answer that benefited their agenda? Hmmmmm curious and curiouser... I'm just glad pension actuaries would never do such a thing..

OK, what am I missing? If NRA is currently 55 and the plan currently allows in-service distributions, how can you just change it to 62 and say the change applies to past accruals? Wouldn't that be a 411(d)(6) violation? Any benefit he/she accrued prior to the change in NRD would still have a NRA of 55, so again, why not just pay the in-service distribution at 55 (in 2009)? Is the concern that the IRS will challenge the 55 as unreasonable, especially considering that the person didn't actually retire? I guess they would be a little exposed on that one, but I don't see that waiting to take the money is going to lower the risk. Waiting will just create excess assets since the value of the benefit will decrease each year, while the assets (theoretically) increase.

Matt Damon recently joined the actuarial community when he said - "You do the actuary tables, there's a one out of three chance, if not more, that McCain doesn't survive his first term, and it'll be President Palin. It's like a really bad Disney movie, "The Hockey Mom.' Oh, I'm just a hockey mom from Alaska, and she's president. "She's facing down Vladimir Putin and using the folksy stuff she learned at the hockey rink. It's absurd." If McCain is 72, I calculated about a 10% chance of death during next 4 years, but Damon was really good in Good Will Hunting.

Are you aware the IRS is currently "looking closely" at floor offset arrangements? Several attorneys have told me that it has become very difficult to get approval letters and the IRS is even threatening disqualification to some with existing letters. Mostly just saber rattling, but why put your client through it? Tread carefully and make sure your client understands the risk and is willing to pay your freight.

If the plan provides in-service withdrwals, why not take it? But, you are correct that as long as this person continues to work and defer payment, the value of the benefit will decrease.

I agree, we went through a similar discussion with one of my clients and the attorney's concluded it should be everyone, or no-one. Anything less would cause them to be exposed for a breech of fiduciary duty.

I don't see any problem with that as long as you use the same assumptions for the 2009 valuation. Also, remember that the "valuation" isn't really official until you file the Schedule B. Therefore, although you may have released the 2008 valuation report, your assumptions aren't really locked in until you file the 2008 Schedule MB, which will most likely be after you do the 2009 certification.

sounds a little fishy to me as well. I don't think they plan should authorize the change without express written consent of the participant and their (the plan's) attorney.

My hospital clients have received similar requests. I guess I didn't think the request was too onerous; they just wanted a copy of the plan document and the most recent valuation. The bigger question is why are they asking?

I think my reference was meaningless to my question. From what I can tell, the "old" notice is still required for 2007 plan years, but I would be interested if anyone thinks differently.

Just curious, but why would you have a short plan year for the first plan year?

Are the old Pre-PPA Funding Notices (RPA CL / Assets) required for the 2007 plan year or, since PPA changed the requirements do we have a one year exeption as long as we report the 2007 funded percentage on the 2008 notice. Does this site apply?

Andy, There are some old threads dealing with offsets due to prior distribuitons, mostly related to 415 adjustments. That said, if a longer service person takes a lump sum, and if the plan offsets for prior distributions, the chance that the participant will ever see another $ from the plan is pretty small. They would need to accrue a pretty large benefit in order to offset the "value" of what they already received. I don't really see it as "whip saw", I just see it as a choice. They didn't have to take the distribution, the plan could have given them a suspension notice and their lump sum might have declined with their life expectency. The participant chooses $ today and therefore doesn't get $ tomorrow (in most cases).

Seems to me that if you are giving participants a choice then your disclosure requirements go through the ceiling. It might only apply to cash balance conversions, but there were some regs released 5 or 6 years ago that discussed the requirements if you are giving participants a choice between a db and dc. I believe you will need to demonstrate the impact of their decision under various scenarios in order for their elections to be valid. It may be easier to just draw a line and say these stay in the db and these are out.

We generally just put it into the SAR. It usually says something like ... here are the quarterly contribution requirements, this is when they were due, this is when we paid them... I guess I thought that is what "everyone" was doing. Not sure if this still works under PPA. Also, depending on the amount of the missed quarterly it could generate reportable events with the PBGC which has its own requirements.

Usually it is the auditors call if they need the FAS 158 report or not. Generally, non-professional type employers usually need them, but its up to the auditor.

FWIW - I have concluded that my interpretation is correct through conversations with the IRS and other actuaries.

432(b)(1) ENDANGERED STATUS. --A multiemployer plan is in endangered status for a plan year if, ... 432(b)(1)(B) the plan has an accumulated funding deficiency for such plan year, or is projected to have such an accumulated funding deficiency for any of the 6 succeeding plan years, taking into account any extension of amortization periods under section 431(d). 432(b)(2) CRITICAL STATUS. --A multiemployer plan is in critical status for a plan year if,... 432(b)(2)(B)(i) the plan has an accumulated funding deficiency for the current plan year, not taking into account any extension of amortization periods under section 431(d), or Lets say I have a plan that is "green", but has a funding deficiency approaching in 9 years. I am therefore eligible for and take the automatic 5-yr extension under Section 431(d). This extension solves my credit balance problem and I am free and clear, BUT, since I can't recognize the extension to determine if my plan is in Critical Status, I would fall into critical status 6 years from now when IGNORING the 5-yr extension I have a credit balance problem in the next 3 years. Is that the way you all understand it?

How can you have a "Hi 3 grandfathered around $300K" when the current max comp limit is only $230K? I guess I'm still a bit confused by your question. The 415 $ limit is determined based on the current year and the individual's current age. What happened in the past doesn't impact that. Once you know their current limit, you may decide to offset it for prior distributions, or not.

I haven't though through everything, but just remember that under PPA, the 415 limit is only actuarially increased for retirement after age up to the comp limit. In other words, the comp limit is the ultimate limit regardless of age. It is still an increase, but its not the big increase it once was. I guess you might be able to argue that he "accrued" it prior to the clarification in the Regs, but that is for lawyers to fight about. There is some debate/discussion about how you adjust the 415 limit to recognize prior distributions if at all. You might want to search the board. Personally, assuming all your ducks are in a row on the document, I don't have any real problem with what you are suggesting, assuming the big guy is still working and earning service credits. You might want to look into the possiblity of discrimination against past participants - were there other participants at the time he started to receive his benefits?

no - they are complete "free-bees"

Its not only restricted, its frozen. Did they notify the participants? Ignoring all the implications of the non-certification, I believe you can prepare the certification now and unfreeze it retroactively to the first day of the plan year. I don't remember whether you need to amend your plan to unfreeze it, or if it unfreezes automatically with the certification.

I don't think it is a problem. I have a plan that does it, the IRS has reviewed it and issued a determ letter. No different than any other career average unit credit formula - partial years are ok with them.