could be me maybe not

The answer is yes, absolutely.

Perhaps you should stick to the topic; Willie's time is short today. If you need to go off topic, scat: http://p197.ezboard.com/fengrishmessageboa...tart=41&stop=60 p.s. Are those relatives of yours in the background?

Throw me on the side of those who think that if such a client had an ERISA counsel then this discussion would not have gotten this far. Here's a bet that such a cutting edge actuary is submitting a $50 consulting fee bill atop his $100 Schedule B fee. Ron, your instincts are right on. Maybe ask the client to offer him another $25 for a cite or a letter explaining his position.

I don't know, but my comment is WOW.

In other words, open ended, which is why I think these rules are nearly impossible to comply with unless the participant has outside collateral. Even then, I would think that real good ($$$$) legal advice and drafting would be needed. And you might also need an unusually cooperative financial institution. Dissenting opinions are welcome. Anybody done this and dotted all the i's?

1. Excellent comments by Effen. 2. Animals don't discriminate. 3. Not everybody wears shirts anyways.

Tom, I've run into this kind of thing more often than I like to think. The answer is Yes, they need to get the top heavy for whatever plan they have met the requirements of. Unfortunately some times plans point to each other in which case you will need to amend one of the plans. Effen's document comment is of course correct but there is a fair chance hat one of them might need fixin. Providing the combined top heavy in the DC is unusual from my experience because the DB 2% covers both plans.

Could it be that he failed to make mandatory employee contributions, fishy?

How old is the inured dude? How old are the others?

"Civilized" life might use "rebuke" instead of "attack"

....while awaiting the imminent pax attack..... mwyatt, I should have realized that my sarcasm about those PBGC beach-goers and that valuable small plan PBGC coverage and the collossal damage that small plan bailouts do I am sure escapes other mammals.

:angry: You disagree that I am monkey-faced or that I am a genius? Where is that "Notify Moderator" button anyways!!??

Maybe it is step one of W's plan to save the PBGC-reduce the accrued benefit of the owner.

....or you do an 11(g) amendment, right? Or not right? Whch is it? Huh?

Like No Name's picture!

Good point. A corrective 11-(g) amendment might also be needed, but you have a point.

There is a grandfather provision in the proposed reg for issues for which there have been prior contrary "guidance". The IRS audit manual, for one thing, states that since the regs and code differ, either pre or post participation comp is acceptable. Presumably that would be considered "guidance".

Doesn't this mean that the term cost should, and should have been, $0?

I like this comment from one of our esteemed board members (a little out of context admittedly):

Don't laugh at me, fishy. Laugh at my client that asked me the question. I cannot do that. It is not a pleasant thought to think that one hears of major pension developments from one's client, especially when one gets the Benefitslink newsletter, TAG, et al daily. Thanks for the comments. Guess nothing's new on point. p.s. nice first 1/3 of an inning by your pitcher yesterday fishy. Makes one want to get Wild Thing back.

Apparently the question that I am asking that was asked of me relates to Wednesday's Supreme Court decison, but that does not appear on the surfact to impact cash balance conversions, does it>

Did something recently happen that I missed about DB conversions to CB plans?

Is it true that a 412(i) plan that has a side fund is not a 412(i) plan and becomes subject to all the normal DB rules including 412, etc.? Or is that not true?

Seems to me that your proposal is unreasonable unless you'all use your real names.

Carol, then it is not a 412(i) plan at all, is it? If you put some fancy stuff inside a safe harbor plan then it is not a safe harbor plan at all. What you describe is a DB plan with life insurance in it, right? And doesn't that make fiduciary considerations important, i.e. diversification of assets among other things? But I do not follow your last two sentences.