Andy the Actuary

M2: Understand your point but would add by example, a dividend has been declared to be paid in January 2011. That dividend has a different time value if received January 2 than if received January 24. Since the income accrual does not affect the pre-funding balance, my inclination is to ignore it, and in practice, I have ignored it because I just thought of this question today!

Okay, you had to know this question would asked by a Missourian: Where does "it appear?" Is this your personal opinion? Did the DOL state this informally at a meeting? Was this in some consulting firm's newsletter? Okay (should've been more accurate), it appears from my reading of the Section 504 of PPA, and from what others were saying http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=43956&hl= Glad to see I waffled on my earlier position, as this now qualifies me to run for public office.

Sorry about the lack of clarity in my question. I (believe I) understand how to reflect accrued contributions both on Schedule H and Schedule SB. I was asking if you needed to discount accrued interest for determining the actuarial value of plan assets just as you discount accrued contributions?

In determining the actuarial value of plan assets, receivable contributions are discounted to the actuarial valuation date at the equivalent interest rate for the prior valuation year. Should the accrued interest receivable reported in the Plan assets on the 5500 be discounted to the actuarial valuation date? If so, would you use the equivalent interest rate for the prior or current valuation year?

Depending upon the size of the installment relative to the cost of keeping the estate open, you may wish seek legal advice if the estate can be closed when it has a receivable. If the installment is sizable, then SCA offered the solution. You also indicated indeterminate amount of time but are we really talking about a maximum number of installments with the possibly of commuting these if the Plan becomes positioned to distribute benefits in a lump sum? What is this number? The Plan administrator must follow the Plan. If the funded status prohibits payment, then so be it.

"Joker" Andrew is only King if royalty is age-determined.

Careful in your poking around the PBGC that you don't get poked back!

You may wish to check the ownership attribution rules.

I'm confused by all of the Andrews. Henceforth, could we please refer to AndyH as "Ace," Abanky as "Deuce", and Andy the Actuary as "Joker?"

You should anticipate a response no later than when Cinco de Mayo falls on May 4.

Okay, you had to know this question would asked by a Missourian: Where does "it appear?" Is this your personal opinion? Did the DOL state this informally at a meeting? Was this in some consulting firm's newsletter?

You need legal help. You may have a plan but you may not have a bona fide trust.

It would seem you would post the same crud on the Intranet that is publicly available on EFAST2 website.

Let us just say the service has gone back and forth on this. At one point, they indicated that none of the excess transferred was subject to excise tax. Then, they reversed themselves and said only the first 25% was exempt. Now, I believe the entire 100% would be exempt.

How about amending plan to give each member a different benefit formula which yields the same present value. Then, each can take take his benefit to the extent funded which should get you where you want to be. There is no discrimination if all are HCEs and key issue would be that there never were any NHCEs.

The IRS in Your Backyard! [Advert.] See attached Come discuss employee benefits issues with industry colleagues and local, regional and national experts from the IRS, DOL and the private sector. Programs focus on current regulatory, legislative, administrative and actuarial topics. ================================================================================ Can't speak for the rest of ya, but my back yard ain't this large !!!! IRS_In_Your_Back_Yard___1.pdf

This is a trivial exercise that hit me last night as I was reading an article printed off the internet. I have an 8 1/2 by 11 inch sheet with a 1 1/4 inch border both vertical and horizontal and justified printing. Question: Approximately what percentage of the paper's area is taken up by the border? Mathematics yields an answer that in no way agrees with what the eyes see. I was flabberghasted by this result.

Yes, the 430 rate. So, for example, if age 45 and lump sum at 7.5% at age 55, then you'd use the 6-20 430 segment rate to discount lump sum back to age 45. This methodology was covered in the attached proposed regs. from 2007. IRS_Proposed_Funding_12_28_2007_REG_139236_07.pdf

Greater of lump sum @7.50% discounted at appropriate segment rate from time of payment versus 430 rates and applicable mortality table (post distribution).

TU08-04 expands upon TU07-03 and applies when Plan is terminated after after being amended for PPA minimum lump sum actuarial basis. It provides that blending percentages of treasuries and bonds continue to phase-in rather than be determined at the plan termination date. Steve C's facts do not fit TU08-04 because the plan had not been amended by its termination date to adopt the PPA minimum lump sum actuarial basis.

Okay, then she takes the distribution and rolls it to an IRA. Then, rather than repaying the loan all at once, she takes a fixed loan with a balloon and takes systematic period distributions from the IRA to repay the loan. I believe she would have to take these distributions for 5 years and then could take a lump sum to repay the balloon.

If not incorporated and over 59 1/2 (so that 10% distribution penalty doesn't apply), consider tax implications of borrowing money, making contribution, terminating plan, taking distribution, repaying loan.

The attached may be of interest to you. ASAP_07_32_PBGC_Lump_Sums_Basis.pdf

"Under section 436(d)(5), a prohibited payment is (1) any payment in excess of the monthly amount paid under a single life annuity (plus any social security supplements that are provided under the plan) to a participant or beneficiary, (2) any payment for the purchase of an irrevocable commitment from an insurer to pay benefits, or (3) any other payment specified by the Secretary by regulations"

No, the wolf might apply the 3% method.