david rigby

Convenient link for IRS regs. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-...26/26tab_02.tpl

In many cases, American health care.

What does this have to do with a plan freeze? Who's in charge here?

OK. When referring to TH, my intent was to refer to possible coding error, not plan provision.

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=123231,00.html Click on "Monthly Yield Curve Tables". The IRS has finally provided these in spreadsheet format!

Maybe. What if the client has not yet contributed its 2008 PY contribution, and wants the absolute minimum? The result will not produce any prefunding balance? Does that not require some revision?

Since you say "TNC", I assume this is UC method. Just asking. Could a TH minimum be the cause? Could there be some unusual death benefit as cause?

When you review the "funded level" (especially in the overfunded plan), be sure to note the plan provision that defines what happens to excess assets, if any, upon plan termination.

Could there be a typographical error in there somewhere? P.S. Post the exact language?

Data as of 30-JAN-09 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 5.32 5.32 Aa 6.26 5.96 6.11 A 6.52 6.70 6.61 Baa 7.97 8.53 8.25 Avg 6.92 6.63 6.78 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 1.10 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 2.50 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 3.72

Very impressive.

See p. 13 of General Instructions. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099gi.pdf

Page 64 of IRS publication 590. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf

No time to look up the details, but I recall (I think) an IRS statement that an automatic/indexed change in AE is subject to 411(d)(6).

Just first thought, it seems prudent to follow the other general practices that the govt entity is using to account for its short FY. Any help there? I'm willing to be educated about other approaches or standards.

Could be. Depends on your plan amendment. But (likely) the plan amendment is not done, so it depends on what the sponsor wants to do. On a non-discrminatory basis of course.

Good cite. However, if the plan is never subject to the applicable section of PPA06, then the statute (and the corresponding IRS guidance) does not apply.

Sounds like an actuarial assumption to me. What do you think?

I never noticed that before. ERISA sec. 4002(g)(2). Perhaps the stakeholders (plan psonsors) should rise up and demand their right to have a say in the management of this "corporation."

The effective date of PPA06 sec. 1104 is "plan years beginning after December 31, 2007." If the plan terminated before a 2008 plan year, then this provision does not apply. Just my opinion; do you think otherwise?

I'm not sure what you mean? As Andy points out, it appears the maximum assumed earnings rate (for purposes of smoothing) is the third segment of the funding rates (Sec. 121(a) of WRERA).

My favorite rant: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...st&p=104851

I agree w/ Andy. 23K to 70K does not seem sensible.

Sieve's explanation seems right on point. (However, I'm concerned that he posted at 1:43 am.)

Does the plan have the (common) language for automatic payouts when less than $5K?