david rigby

Indeed there is. See Q&A 2006-32.

There may be a couple of other issues to consider: - Is there a collective bargaining agreement? For example, a CBA could have language that requires the ER to provide all information to the EA in a timely manner so that a AFTAP can be certified by October 1. - There was considerable discussion at this year's EA meeting (as well as on this discussion boards) along the lines of Andy's first post (ie, the EA should not certify anything until the PA requests the certification). Suppose the EA has all the information needed to do a certification, but does not do so because the PA has not requested it. Could that, in any manner, imply the EA has "failed" to do his/her duty on behalf of the plan participants? (Litigation, anyone?)

"current or former"? Does not matter. It refers to a QDRO.

See Gray Book Q&A 2003-25. "The high-25 restriction applies to the combination of the benefit paid to the participant and the spouse." (sorry, my copy does not allow me to copy and paste)

IMHO, this situation will attract calls of "abuse", and may attract legislation. However, it appears to conform with the actual words of the statutes; I believe it does not violate either PPA or 411.

Best source for confirmation is the instructions on PBGC website. I don't think the valdate is relevant.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/compliance_assistance.html#section5a Scheduled for plan years beginning 1/1/09 or later. But it could change.

... but the plan's FTAP might be so low that PPA-required restrictions may apply. Tread carefully.

Session 103 discussed participant disclosures. (Sorry, I did not attend that session.)

2008 instructions here: http://www.pbgc.gov/docs/2008comprehensivebooklet.pdf I think you want page 16.

Thanks for your thoughts Mike. Pretty much what I was thinking. Here it is. Public domain. Use it as you will, or not. The spreadsheet contains appropriate comments and caveats; the important ones are: - transactions tracked on monthly basis; - no accrued transactions; - 12-month plan year. MV_Yield_Calc.xls

Isn't there a statement from IRS: if an amendment changes the vesting schedule and all current participants (pr perhaps those with 3 YOVS) are automatically provided the better percent, then no election is needed?

IRC 436(f)(8) states Comment by Mr. Holland at 2009 EA Meeting (as nearly as I remember the quote): "I don't think you want more than you already have." So, it appears we won't have IRS regulation on this. IMHO, that is a good result; Mr. Holland is correct. Issue I have a spreadsheet to perform this calculation. I'm willing to post it, for public domain. Is this a good idea? If so, should it be protected? Any other comments? Anyone (actuary, attorney, etc.) see any problems with this?

I realize the employee counts in (1) of original post are approximate, but are you sure about your 65% ratio? The numbers posted may lead to a different conclusion.

Also, note the Employee Plans News, issued 03/31/09. w/r/t the definition of MV rate of return to be used in rollforward of credit balances, JH said "I think you don't want more than you already have." Unlikely that the IRS will devote any time to defining this in regulation. IMHO, a reasonable interpretation of the statute is to determine a rate of return on a cash basis (no accrued anything at BOY or EOY) using whatever time-weighting factors are available and reasonable. (For example, I can see reasonableness in using 1/2 year for monthly benefit payments, but not for ER contributions. You decide.) Be carfeul about NC. Note the change in definition in WRERA. Not trivial.

Good overview. In addition, the 2008 AFTAP is deemed to be applicable for the first 3 months of 2009 (unless it is actually certified in that time).

Does the SPD have to detail the benefit formula(e) that apply to those participants who are inactive?

Choice is permitted only if 500 or fewer participants. See: - 1.430(h)(3)-1(b), in federal register 5/29/07, and - Notice 2008-85, in IRB 10/20/08. However, it states "sponsor" is permitted to choose, which does not sound like an actuarial assumption. Perhaps, it is part of the method. But there may be something I've missed.

Data as of 31-MAR-09 Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.39 5.39 Aa 6.14 6.04 6.09 A 6.41 6.87 6.64 Baa 8.04 8.85 8.45 Avg 6.86 6.79 6.83 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.91 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.08 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.37

Possibly relevant? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29101

Comments from SoCal and Effen are "spot on". A "small plan software" package may be perfectly reasonable for this plan. Other issues that could arise may include: other plans within a controlled group, non-qualified plan(s), minimum coverage, time spent responding to auditor, completion of 5500, different benefit for different groups/divisions, etc. One issue that will likely be irrelevant: top-heavy.

Yes.

I agree with AtA, but add the caution, "did you file the Form 501?"

Is an answer available from Q&A T30-T31 in the 416 reg?

I believe you are searching for the term "safe harbor".