david rigby

If it were me, I might want to be talking to my attorney before making such suggestion.

Andy, your answer is better than mine. My apologies for thinking the original question was silly. (Perhaps the original questioner should have described his/her relationship to the plan/sponsor/actuary). Possibly, the sponsor asked the actuary to help with something (not having any idea the consequences) and the actuary responded (correctly) that it could be accomplished only by changing the plan year. The result is the actuary is seen as "requesting" a change.

Well, duh! Changing the plan year can only be accomplished via plan amendment. Does the actuary have such authority?

The instructions say "The plan administrator must sign...", and "the employer must sign...". No doubt, DOL regs provide more description of the former, perhaps about the latter. Does Ima's boss care if Ima signs the form? (I suspect your fact set is pretty common.)

Why? Does the plan define the ER contribution as discretionary?

IMHO, the PPA language is clear that your burn as much CB to get the plan to a needed threshold level, but don't burn anything if you can't get there. For example, see IRC 436(f)(3).

Probably, it's mostly a survey of job satisfaction, with factors for compensation, lack of heavy lifting, etc. Don't know if there are any factors for "future prospects".

Ask the "broker" to produce evidence supporting the position? You provide similar evidence (i.e., plan provisions), and see if the broker can justify his/her position.

Discussion here about IRS and SSA letter forwarding programs. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40445

Don't know if it's current, but PA did not.

Don't know if your situation is "sham" or simply "remarry". Some discussion here.

You are correct. It affects the VRP only.

Could it be less, under PPA section 405?

I would never sell my copy. Priceless.

I haven't parsed the language, but there could be an inconsistency without an amendment. (Note that "inconsistency" is not the same as "wrong".) For example, PPA06 included language that requires plan modification in certain circumstances (such as the automatic freeze if a funding level drops below a certain level). Somewhere in the future, every plan must be amended to incorporate that concept, but we don't know yet how to do it. Thus, your plan may have that deficiency. However, it is difficult to see how a terminated one-person plan could suffer any harm by not having the language. In 2010, when the IRS provides some guidance (ha ha), it seems unlikely they will require modification for plans that no longer exist. But, what do I know. Discuss with your ERISA attorney?

What is a "WRERA amendment"? Covers what provisions?

I'm aware of waiver in the case of termination of a PBGC-covered plan, the intent being to make a plan fully funded in a standard termination. Is there another scenario?

Since WRERA changed PPA06 back to the latter's orginal effective date, it would seem that any 2008 plan year is affected. What particular section of WRERA is your focus?

I love RPN. Once you get used to it, nothing else measures up. However, with the 17BII, you can choose RPN or "conventional". Another advantage to the 17B is that it will accept non-integral "n" in a time value of money calculation.

What do you mean by "involvement"? The "FAS87 valuation" is provided by the plan's actuary. It's purpose is to provide (primarily) two pieces of information: the accounting expense for the fiscal year, and the information applicable for financial statement purposes at the end of the fiscal year. (BTW, "fiscal year" refers to the year of the plan sponsor, not the plan year.)

Quite a few years ago, I used the HP-17BII. Several others used a different HP model; I think it was the 12C.

I think that depends on the precise wording of the freeze amendment.

As I recall, in the development of a standard table a few years ago, the committee designing the table recommended a rate that never went to 1.0. I think they settled on 0.4 or 0.5 for all years after a certain age (perhaps 110 or 115). It may have been the RP-2000 table, which can be found on the Society of Actuaries website, http://www.soa.org, which was the basis (I think) for the creation of the tables in the IRS Notice.

Why are there inconsistencies in federal statutes? Perhaps, successful lobbying.

As Andy states, WRERA changed the statute. We still await commentary from the IRS as to its meaning. Earlier discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40708 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40788