quinnfield

But a monthly distribution is not completely relieving the plan sponsor of the obligation, just a part of it. Thus it doesn't fit the definition of a settlement.

Here's the St. Louis Fed site for the 30 year TCM: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GS30?cid=115 It's 3.79%. This has always been equal to the 30 year TSR in the past.

Because oft times, the Schedule H is prepared on a cash basis, and regulations require the Schedule B to be prepared on an accrual accounting basis.

May someone age 65 or older contribute to an HSA?Friday, December 12th, 2008 by WPJ In Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous Notice 2004-50, the IRS addresses this question. See Questions 2 and 4, excerpted below: Q-2. May an otherwise eligible individual who is eligible for Medicare, but not enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B, contribute to an HSA? A-2. Yes. Section 223(b)(7) states that an individual ceases to be an eligible individual starting with the month he or she is entitled to benefits under Medicare. Under this provision, mere eligibility for Medicare does not make an individual ineligible to contribute to an HSA. Rather, the term “entitled to benefits under” Medicare means both eligibility and enrollment in Medicare. Thus, an otherwise eligible individual under section 223©(1) who is not actually enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B may contribute to an HSA until the month that individual is enrolled in Medicare. Example (1). Y, age 66, is covered under her employer’s HDHP. Although Y is eligible for Medicare, Y is not ctually entitled to Medicare because she did not apply for benefits under Medicare (i.e., enroll in Medicare Part A or Part B). If Y is otherwise an eligible individual under section 223©(1), she may contribute to an HSA. Example (2). In August 2004, X attains age 65 and applies for and begins receiving Social Security benefits. X is automatically enrolled in Medicare. As of August 1, 2004, X is no longer an eligible individual and may not contribute to an HSA.

From Para. 40 of SFAS #88: 40. The Board concluded that a curtailment gain or loss as defined in paragraph 13 (which does not include recognition of prior service cost) should first be offset to the extent possible against the plan's previously existing unrecognized net loss or gain. Any remainder of the curtailment gain or loss cannot, at least in an overall sense, be a reversal of unrecognized amounts, and therefore, recognition of that remainder is appropriate.

Love that avatar! Here's some guidance I stole from a Towers Watson publication: Failing to make a required contribution is a reportable event under Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) rules. If the accumulated missed contributions are more than $1 million, the sponsor must notify the PBGC using Form 200 within 10 days of the missed contribution deadline. The failure also triggers a lien. If the accumulated missed contributions are $1 million or less, the sponsor must file the much simpler Form 10 within 30 days of the missed payment deadline. However, sponsors that pay the amount within the 30 days do not have to file the form.

Once again, if you’re over age 65 and not eligible for Medicare or not enrolled in Medicare Part A or Part B, you’re still eligible to establish or contribute to an HSA. If this statement is false, please point me to the section of the Code that governs this.

Why would an actively employed person bother to enroll in Medicare? Isn't it more advantageous to enroll in the HDHP and enjoy the tax benefits of the HSA as well?

SAS 70 is being replaced by SSAE 16 (Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 16).

Your approach is OK, except that the ROA assumption should be set at the beginning of the measurement period with the difference between expected return and actual return deferred into the unrecognized gain/loss. It always comes down to what the firm's auditors find acceptable.

I know you can't contribute to an HSA after the month in which you turn 65, but I would expect that any monies on deposit could be used to pay Medicare co-payments.

just an observation--if HCE3 is a NHCE, then the answer is C. I and II only. In any year after 1988, the HCE limit is more than 80,000.

And in a perfect world, your expected benefit payments used in the calculation of the FAS87 pension expense should match to what you reported in the benefit payment schedule in the FAS158 disclosure report.

Has anyone seen the IRS Notice that's published monthly with the updated interest rates? Has the IRS stopped issuing this? Thanks,

Here's a table from DataIR: AnnualLimits.pdf