Effen

Thank you, that is helpful. Excuse my ignorance, but what does PEO mean?

What if it is a multiple employer DC plan? Assume many unrelated employers adopt the multiple employer plan. They all invest in various pooled accounts. Would that satisfy the "all the assets of which are available to pay the benefits claim of any eligible employee" requirement because they are pooled accounts, or because each dollar of each fund is allocated to an individual, it should be considered "seperate funding" and therefore each adopting employer should file a 5500? I'm looking at a multiple employer PS/401(k) plan that each employer picks their own employer ps allocation and matching formula. I'm having trouble determining if they should be filing one 5500 or if each employer should file their own 5500 since all of the money is allocated to individuals? The Plan document contains an exclusinve benefit rule that states "All contributions made by the Co-sponsor will be used for the exclusive benefit of the Participants who are Employees of the Co-sponsor and will not be used for nor diverted to any other purpose except the payment of the costs maintaining the plan." It seems to me that each co-sponsor should be filing their own 5500. Agree?

It may not be a 204(h) Notice, but there is notice requirement. Act Sec. 101. (j) NOTICE OF FUNDING-BASED LIMITATION ON CERTAIN FORMS OF DISTRIBUTION. -- --The plan administrator of a single-employer plan shall provide a written notice to plan participants and beneficiaries within 30 days -- (1) after the plan has become subject to a restriction described in paragraph (1) or (3) of section 206(g)), (2) in the case of a plan to which section 206(g)(4) applies, after the valuation date for the plan year described in section 206(g)(4)(B) for which the plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage for the plan year is less than 60 percent (or, if earlier, the date such percentage is deemed to be less than 60 percent under section 206(g)(7)), and (3) at such other time as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. The notice required to be provided under this subsection shall be in writing, except that such notice may be in electronic or other form to the extent that such form is reasonably accessible to the recipient.

I would probably say they are SOL until 2008, but then I'm a bit conservative on this kind of thing.

Do a search of the board and you will find lots of creative solutions. I'm sorry to say there is no perfect answer. Have they really made an effort to find the person? Have they used a search firm to try and find them?

Come on, lets be realistic. Boston and New York should just play a best of 164 schedule since they are the only two teams that "anyone" cares about - at least those East of Syracuse and north of Jersey. The winner of those two would play the best of the other teams in the World Series. Or maybe the winner of the best of 164 just has home field advantage, and then they play each other again in a best of 7 for the World Series. I guess either would work. If you consider beating up your little sister an accomplishment, then you are ready to be a Yankees or Red Sox fan. They spend 2 - 9 times what other teams spend on payroll and then you celebrate like you accomplishment something when they beat them. Sorry, you guys are suppose to win and when you don't the rest of the country celebrates.

Double Post - See Defined Benefit Board

I will give it to the Sox. Beckett was incredible and the high prices Sox hitters finally appeared. I'm still not sure why they held Lofton at third, but once the next hitter hit into the DP, I knew the Sox were going to blow it open, which they did. I guess I just became a Rockies fan.

deleted due to mis-understanding - I was wondering what he was referring too. Thanks for putting my straight Belgarath. Now, can you do anything about the issues in the Middle East?

2 to 1 Tribe. Why is Red Sox nation suddenly so quite?

PPA in general will result in far fewer EA's, we won't need harder exams to accomplish that. If we did make the exams more difficult, it would be for the greater good of society. We would be just helping the next generation of workers to find another profession. Did the buggy whip manufactures keep training people once Ford started creating cheap autos? No reason to churn out more EA's, when there won't be anything for them to do.

Yes on the SAR (2006 5500) No on the PBGC funding notice (assuming you mean the 2007 notice) 2008 - who knows, add it to the list of things we are waiting for

I'm not sure I understand your question. A multi-employer plan is a negotiated plan, generally for union members. If someone isn't paying dues, they probably aren't a member of the union and therefore the employer is probably not making contributions on their behalf and therefore they wouldn't be benefiting. If you are thinking about discrimination issues, collectively bargained plans are generally given an automatic pass on most pension related discrimination issues. In other words, if an employer employs 75 people, 50 of those are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that negotiates contributions into a multi-employer plan. The other 25 are not union members and are not represented by the union during negotiations. The employer doesn't have to provide any retirement benefits for the 25 non bargained employees. The counter is also true. If the employer wanted to give the non-bargained employees 5 times as much as the union employees, that would be ok as well. There may be labor related issues in some states and there could be prevailing wage issues on some jobs, but those are generally not ERISA issues. Do you have a situation where the non-union workers are covered by a multi-employer plan? Can you be more specific about your situation.

Are they still playing baseball? Our season generally only lasts until May or so around here. Glad to see someone in this country still cares. Go Tribe! Did I miss something or were you referring to ASPPPPPA's conference as an "EA conference"?

I thought that was when you dreamed a lot about a couple of tee pees ..... oh wait, that is when you are too tense

Your right, "before, you completed the form, printed it out, and mailed it to the client for payment.", now you just complete the form and hit a button. No letter to write, no forms to mail, nothing to upload. Just hit the button and the client has the form. I agree the first year involves a little hand holding, but once that is behind you we've found things run fairly smoothly. We are on yr-2 with the system and have only had a few hand-holding calls. Most went very smoothly. We just spend our 15 minutes typing it in, and we're done. Not all change is bad, if you give it a chance. Ultimately what ever works best for you is the right answer. I was just pointing out that I don't find MyPAA all that difficult or problematic.

Everett - Great link!

I think only DC plans are permitted to charge for this. If it is a DB plan, I don't think you can charge the participant.

I guess I'm just the strange one, but I really find the MyPaa system pretty easy to work with once you use it a little. Even my most difficult clients have been able to handle it. I guess I just don't see what all the teeth gnashing is about. I have big plans and small plans and they have all seemed to be able to get it done.

Lots of stuff from the IRS that says you can not change assumptions when you amend a Schedule B. If you search this board I'm sure you will find the necessary sites. That said, I have seen actuaries who amended Sch B's and changed assumptions and the IRS never said anything (yet), but it is a "no no".

I have a new client who was required to provide the 2006 PBGC Participant Notice, but whose previous service provider (insert large national firm here) neglected to tell them about the requirement. I spoke to the previous provider and they agreed that one should have been done. So, I have prepared the notice for the client and told them to issue it ASAP. My question relates to the 2007 PBGC filing. As you know there is a question asking about the previous year's participant notice requirement. There are only 3 possible answers to the question. 1) Was not required to be issued, 2) Was issued on time and in accordance with all other applicable requirements, or 3) An explanation is provided here. I plan on selecting Option 3 and providing an explanation, but I am wondering how the PBGC will react. I know there is a potential $1,100 per day fine, but I can't believe they would actually asses it. Has anyone ever selected Option 3? If so, how did the PBGC react?

I agree

Unless it was a drafting error, I would assume this was done in order to lower the required contribution. As the actuary, you are not required to use NRA as your assumed RA. If you have reasons for using something different, I think that is ok. So if he's willing to tell you that he isn't planning on retiring until 60 (possibly in writing), and he gives himself a suspension notice once he reaches age 59, I think you have accomplished the same thing without violating 411(d)(6). You can assume a RA of 60 for funding, even though he is really eligible at 59.

Since no one else has responded I will give this a shot, unless something was changed in PPA 06 (which is possible since I haven't fully digested the cash balance provisions), in a traditional db conversion 411(d)(6) requires you to protect the accrued benefit and all of its forms of payments, including 417(e) requirements. Therefore, you can't just convert it to a cash balance account and forget about it. This was the heart of the moratorium the IRS put on cash balance conversions and led to lots of problems. My suggestion would be to simply start the cash balance at $0. Value the plan as two pieces, one for the frozen traditional plan and one for the cash balance piece. Don’t try to combine the two or you are just begging for 411(d)(6) issues.

I guess that is my point... are we all in agreement that you can no longer use annual factors to determine the max 415 lump sum or do you think you can still use the annual factor if the normal form is an annual annuity?