tymesup

Suppose the maximum deductible contribution was equal to the minimum required contribution and was deposited in 2014. If HATFA reduced the MRC, you now have a non-deductible contribution.

IIRC, the feds think that the increase is ignored for 2013.

Quoting myself from another thread: One can argue that Rev-Proc 2000-40 still applies. It has not been formally superseded. Announcement 2010-3 mentions the Rev-Proc, specifically saying it has not been updated to reflect the changes made by PPA '06. It does not, however, say the Rev-Proc is defunct. The Gray Books are not binding. Neither are statements from David Ziegler. Heck, one could claim the reason that the Rev-Proc hasn't been updated is that it doesn't need to be. ** However, the consensus here and at ACOPA is we don't have approval. Why take the risk of a change, unless there's a compelling reason to do so?

One can argue that Rev-Proc 2000-40 still applies. It has not been formally superseded. Announcement 2010-3 mentions the Rev-Proc, specifically saying it has not been updated to reflect the changes made by PPA '06. It does not, however, say the Rev-Proc is defunct. The Gray Books are not binding. Neither are statements from David Ziegler. Heck, one could claim the reason that the Rev-Proc hasn't been updated is that it doesn't need to be. ** However, the consensus here and at ACOPA is we don't have approval. Why take the risk of a change, unless there's a compelling reason to do so?

Two issues with floor offsets to start with. First, the DC gateway may not be enough to offset the DB benefit, particularly for older participants. Second, participants in the DC plan may get poor investment results, resulting in a DB accrual.

Alex, what is "Reserved"?

What does the plan doc say about Late or Deferred Retirement? Note there may be different treatment after age 70 1/2.

From the article - "The proposal being discussed as part of a package to end the shutdown". With the shutdown over, this probably goes on the back burner until the next time Washington decides to do something [supply your own adjective].

I'd amend the plan to provide an assumption for future COLAs.

It depends what the plan document says. A typical document of ours states that the top-heavy benefit is [only] provided in a Top Heavy Plan Year, so no action is necessary.

a plan in which only an insurance agent and his secretary participated (the insurance agent-secretary plan) was subject to the termination insurance provisions (PBGC Opinion Letter 76-106; PBGC Opinion Letter 76-61).

You can't go higher than 200K for 99, 00 or 01. The average could be 167K or 200K, depending on the plan document and amendments.

We just did one of these with a $1 application of the PFB, FWIW. The COB was small, so there wasn't much to lose. Felt silly using $1, but it is what it is.

My recollection coincides with david rigby's above. You may also want to look at Notice 2007-14.

I suppose "readily determinable" is open to some interpretation, too. Thanks, Bird and ESOP Guy.

Is an investment in a REIT considered an eligible plan asset? I don't see it in 2520.103-1©(2)(ii)©.

We had a similar issue and decided 411d6 applied.

If you have the 75 and 100 J&S factors, you can derive the 50 J&S factor.

Doesn't sound like it here, but it is possible that you have to reflect a contribution that exceeds the maximum deductible amount. Suppose a sole proprietor has no Schedule C income, so there is no deductible contribution. If there is a minimum required contribution, you would reflect that on the SB to prevent a funding deficiency.

I'm assuming there is no funding balance available to satisfy the required installment. Agreed 25K is sufficient. They may have to notify the PBGC. They do have to notify the participants, if any.

I don't see any reason not to try. With the minimum funding deadline fast approaching, the plan sponsor should be prepared to make the larger contribution.

Faster than the COPA board by 2 minutes!

I tried "*" as a special character a couple of days ago. It was a little too special, apparently. I had to go to the tips to discover why my new password was unacceptable.

Off the shelf, not sure of the exact endpoints on these size and timing intervals: The interest penalty applies if the quarterly is late. The PBGC gets a Form 10 if the quarterly is 30 days late and the plan is large (100). This applies to each late quarterly. The PBGC gets an abbreviated notice if the quarterly is 30 days late and the plan is medium (25-100). A new notice is not required for a subsequent late quarterly in the same plan year. The PBGC gets nothing if the plan is small (1-25). The participants get a notice if a quarterly is 60 days late. It's not clear when the notice is due or what it looks like, since the Comissioner has never issued regulations. Some provide it in the AFN or SAR.

I think we've got 60 days before the Notice to Participants is triggered: Act Sec. 101. (d) NOTICE OF FAILURE TO MEET MINIMUM FUNDING STANDARDS. -- (1) IN GENERAL. -- If an employer maintaining a plan other than a multiemployer plan fails to make a required installment or other payment required to meet the minimum funding standard under section 302 to a plan before the 60th day following the due date for such installment or other payment, the employer shall notify each participant and beneficiary (including an alternate payee as defined in section 206(d)(3)(K)) of such plan of such failure. Such notice shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe.