david rigby

Perhaps others have different opinions here, but I vote with the CPA. Why? Because he is the CPA. If CPA amends corp return, then amend 5500. If CPA does not amend corp return, then don't amend 5500. IMHO, those are the only choices. But, in the meantime, you have explained your position (not "argued") to the CPA and plan sponsor, in writing. It's their decision.

This seems appropriate: Go Braves!

Options? For what? Sponsor can eliminate the Target Normal Cost via a plan freeze, but that does not change the Target Liability. Currently, lots of noise in DC about some type of "'delay" for minimum funding requirements, but there may not be any viable legislation.

Hmmm. Does this make it a good test and/or question?

Perhaps we are not focusing on the same thing. At any rate, since I don't have PPA text in front of me to verify, here is my recollection: solely for purposes of determining whether you are subject to a shortfall amortization, compare [(AVA minus prefunding balance) divided by Target Liability] to the phase-in percent. (That is, you are not using FTAP or AFTAP.) - If you pass that test, your shortfall amortization payment is zero. - If you fail that test, then determine the actual shortfall as [Target Liability minus (AVA-prefunding balance-carryover balance)]. Are we on the same page?

The test for funding phase-in percent is AVA minus prefunding balance (not carryover balance).

IRS letter forwarding program: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=110139,00.html Free if less than 50 in a 12-month period. Much more if the number exceeds 50. BTW, the SSA also has a program, that costs $25 per.

HCE?

For answer 2A, certain distributions from a QP can be rolled over, but not all distributions.

"Funding" typically means cash contributions, and the actuarial analysis behind them. If the plan is subject to ERISA, it also encompasses Internal Revenue Code section 412 (and now 430 and 436, etc). "FAS87" and/or "accounting" refers to how a DB plan is incorporated into the financial statements of the plan sponsor. All FAS statements are part of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and therefore apply to any company that issues GAAP financial statements. On a practical level, many privately-held companies, although technically subject to GAAP, don't bother with FAS87 information. Governmental plan sponsor are not subject to FAS accounting rules.

Never mind. Here it is. Notice_200885.xls

Anyone have a link to the tables in IRS Notice 2008-85, in csv or xls format? P.S. I did not see anything here: http://xtbml.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp

I like the idea Andy. Can you see any possible 401(a)(4) issues? Any 416 issues?

This is the important fact: It would seem you offer (a) an annuity of 75, or (b) the EECWI (which by definition is a lump sum), plus an annuity of 65.

I think it is either $14,500 or $9,000, contained in Rev Proc. 2008-8. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb08-01.pdf Caution: fees may change on January 1, 2009.

Sieze the accounts? Methinks that is the wrong verb. The proposal is (essentially) to require that the government be the "trustee", which does not cancel existing accounts and is not the same as seizure. (It's still a bad idea.)

Better than "call" or "ask", how about "hire an actuary", especially one who is experienced in your concern.

Maybe. I've heard Ms. Teresa Ghilarducci give a radio interview on this subject. She is very serious, including such phrases as "share the wealth". However, I agree (hope) that she won't get any traction in Congress.

You may not have the problem expected. In my observation, an in-service distribution (assuming it's for the full amount of the accrued benefit) will most often mean that the participant does not accrue additional amounts. This is because most plans contain language that offsets the additional accrual by the amount of the distribution, and the net result is usually zero. When is this not the case? Probably if there has been a significant increase in the benefit via amendment or a significant compensation increase.

I think I agree with Effen, but remember that "benefitting" under 404(a)(7) is not the same as that term is used in most other contexts, such as 401(a)(4).

Amend the plan?

I second Andy's suggestion.

Just my opinion, IRS rule number one: thou shalt follow the terms of thy plan document. IRS rule number two: thou shalt not violate IRC 415.

Nope.