tymesup

IIRC, a sole proprietor who is on extension to 10/15 can still have a deductible contribution for 2007. Is it possible the contribution was made on 9/15 but not received by the financial institution until 9/16?

You're welcome.

No experience gain/loss in the first year of the plan. Current value of assets = Market Value less contribution attributable to 2007 = 100. Assuming asset valuation method = market value, 1b(2) = 100.

Er, do you do that other thing that W. C. Fields said you folks do in water? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Avagadro's number, you've earned your propeller today. I was disappointed to find out The Mole was not a chemistry show. Depending on whether you calculate your liabilities to dollars or cents, the rate should converge much faster than that. Now, if we could just get some negative cash flows, then we could have multiple solutions. A cash refund annuity might have multiple rates, too. Thanks for the reminder about inactives. Our current spreadsheet equates the liabilities for actives and ignores the inactives. One more thing to program.

Our Excel spreadsheet does a separate calculation at the effective interest rate. We have a macro that invokes Goal Seek. However, the spreadsheet is so honking big that the macro takes a while to run. We're back to trial and error using precision to x.yz% More work we can't get paid for.

Off the top of my head, I think most were using 12/31/07 CL, some with adjustment. Since the poll was conducted before the most recent "guidance", all bets are off.

During the COPA conference call, this was mentioned. Apparently, COPA members used ASPPA resources to get to Tom Reeder (sp?) at Treasury. Better late than never.

We seem to have all BOY vals, so I didn't vote. I'd probably do a 12/31/07 AFTAP if I had EOY's. While I might not listen to a fish, I think an assortment of dolphins, whales and orcas would do a better job than 535 members of Congress did with PPA.

jk - Note there is an AFTAP due before 10/1/08.

It's like a giant game of Simon Says.

Darned if this exact question didn't come up at our office this afternoon. COPA threads after the earlier AO thread echo that GAR 94 is still the table for 415.

From Actuarial Outpost: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_...p;highlight=415

Matt Damon outBacons Kevin Bacon, ranking 990 and 1048, respectively, as of June 29, 2004 and is still ahead of him today.

http://oracleofbacon.org/ The Oracle does not recognize Ron Mexico, but does ask if you mean Michael Vick.

Here's a site saying McCain's melanoma has a 66% 10 year survival rate, 8 years after the 2000 diagnosis: http://casesblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/cnn-...ma-history.html Here's another site indicating McCain went for a routine biopsy in June. It's hard for us to estimate the probability that the biopsy was bad but he decided to accept the nomination, anyway. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art...rticlekey=14443

On the other hand, a President will get excellent health care. If a President were to die, there is a possibility we would not be informed. The movie, "Dave", was based on this premise.

Thanks very much. I should read the instructions for a change . Or somehow deduce the existence of such a rule.

IIRC, TAG opined that you can offset by the whole PS account, none of it, or something in between. I don't see why you couldn't grant past service and offset by future contributions only. BOY DB and EOY profit sharing would be most interesting. The pattern of gains/losses, too. Under PPA, maybe it's not quite as interesting. Getting your software to behave will give you hours of pleasure. If you use the 5% TH contrib as the only offset, and you only use prospective contributions, you get to set up three accounts - old money, new TH money and new excess money - giving you more hours of pleasure. Note there are differing opinions on whether your offset must be uniform and/or whether non-uniform contributions must be in a separate plan altogether. There have been other threads here and one at ASPPA last year right after the ASPPA convention started, IIRC, by Larry Zeller. Enjoy the reactions from folks receiving an SPD who find out they get no DB benefit. Enjoy the reaction from the biggies when folks who were fully offset start to grow into DB benefits. Enjoy the reaction from the biggies when folks decide to invest their 5% in the riskiest funds available. Heads they win, tails the DB plan loses.

I agree with my piscine colleague. Note that it's not too late to close the barn door before any more horses come inside. Is the plan eligible for the 80/120 rule?

Sweet, I vote for (a).

Does the accruing group cover 40% of your population? If not, does it cover 50 participants? If not, the plan fails 401(a)(26) - the minimum participation test. Another example of the feds fixing one problem and causing another.

You've got non-discrimination under 401(a)(4), a possible plan termination, minimum participation under 401(a)(26) to worry about. Plus 204(h) Notices.

You might get some help on this forum. The plan was terminated in 2005. You mention he took deductions in subsequent years, implying the plan continued for more than a year. Was the plan truly terminated? Normally, distribution must take place within a year of the termination. Were the assets of the trust distributed?

The participant and/or daughter are calling you directly? The client is OK with you advising them? I never thought I'd see this line on BenefitsLink: "But then the story got more strange..."