david rigby

I have done a couple of waivers where I included the interest penalty in the amount requested. If a waiver need not include any interest penalty, that seems equivalent to granting the waiver "as of" the first quarterly due date. I see that as inconsistent with the concept of a waiver. Might be other valid perspectives.

Discriminatory for the employer to bear expenses? Have not heard that one before.

Does the plan permit a change in the form of distribution after commencment date? Not common.

A zillion.

Just be careful how you calculate the PVAB.

Not sure. You could probably do it that way, but I doubt it would be a simple amendment. It goes to the heart of how the benefit formula is designed. It would work more easily if the benefit is defined on each year's comp, rather than FAC (that is, your suggestion does not fit the usual definition of FAC). If you have SS integration that is intended to be safe harbor, be careful of the rules under IRS reg. 1.401(l).

See prior answers.

Who would they make a TH minimum for? The TH rules provide minimums for Non-Key EEs.

Absolutely. However, many definitions of FAC will not address this. Then, look for precedent. Finally, consider amending the plan.

Are we assuming the plan has been amended for 415 as far as possible? COLA? (Yes, this probably only helps with annual payments, but, as suggested earlier, it might be a great intermediate step.)

Have you tried saying "NO"?

I am looking for survey information related to investment mix of defined benefit plans. Any suggestions or links? Thanks.

Well, who gets a TH minium is the second issue. The first problem is who is in which group, just to perform the test. Worry first about whether the test is correct.

Here ya go! QUESTION 2004-27 Nondiscrimination: Accrual Rate for Participants in Frozen Plan Controlled Group A has multiple pension plans. Plans 1, 2 and 3 are active DB plans with participants who currently accrue benefits. Plan 4 is a frozen DB plan that does not adjust benefits to reflect current service or compensation (hard freeze). Plan 3 fails the IRC 410(b) ratio test. Thus, the DB plans are combined to pass coverage. Accrued to date testing is used for general nondiscrimination testing and for the average benefits percentage test (ABPT). For the accrued to date method, in the case of participants in plan 4, should the accrual rate be determined by dividing the frozen accrued benefit by service and pay at the freeze date or at the end of the testing year? RESPONSE If a participant is not currently “benefiting” because there are no current changes in service or compensation taken into account other than for reasons specified in the regulations, then the participant is not taken into account at all for general testing. Only participants who are benefiting are considered. For the ABPT, all employees are considered without regard to whether they are benefiting. For a participant with a frozen accrued benefit who is not currently benefiting, testing service does not change merely because the participant continues in service. However, average compensation is required to reflect years until termination of employment. Copyright © 2004, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the diskette for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

Whether a TH minimum is given to Key EEs is a function of the plan document, not the statute. The bigger issue, which Blinky alluded to, is that the TH test must be done according to how the statute defines a Key EE. If this plan throws a few "extras" in the TH test, it may or may not affect the result.

Correct. The Lorentz contraction.

Was does "get" mean, at least in the terms of the QDRO? That is, does it specify (and plan permit) immediate payment? Or is it merely requiring the segregation of the account? One possible result is that the QDRO is not specific enough for the PA to interpret it.

1971 GAM here: http://library.soa.org/library/tsa/1970-79...V23PT1N6724.pdf This paper also introduced Projection Scales D and E.

This file is labeled in our system as "T-10", but I do not have original source to verify that. T10.txt

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13240

In general, I agree with Jay. More importantly than what you mean by "...8/12th of my yearly benefit...", how does the plan define an accrual for a plan year?

Doesn't that simply mean the employee got a raise? Getting a raise probably is not cause for re-selecting your 125 deferrals. Probably won't impact anyone here because we don't get raises.

Possibly this is "fine-tuning" permitted under the method. IMHO, choosing either will not violate Approval 15 or the Rev. Proc., as long as you document it and apply consistently. However, in my experience, option (1) is what I have done and seen. Can't think of a single real occurrence of (2).

Possible choices might be - whatever mortality table underlies the plan's optional factors, - the table in effect under 417(e), - some table that might be mandated under state law (assuming the fireman is employed by a governmental unit), - some version of the RP2000 table, paying attention to the discussion on "collar". Perhaps check the SOA table manager.

Prudent standards would presumably apply to all investments made by the plan.