HiVi

I work on a plan where the plan is expected to have a liability associated with the Cadillac tax. In terms of recognition of the cadillac tax purposes for ASC 715 as of the close of FY ended March 31, would it be appropriate to include the cost of the cadillac tax in the APBO in the balance sheet, and correspondingly there will be an increase in the amortization of the (gain)/loss in the expense calculation (income statement)?

Ata, is that what is on your head, a mechanical comptometer, or is it what modern meter maids use to make us mad? Somehow I suspect the original question is at a much more basic level. But maybe I'm wrong. Yes, I do mean a full cash refund annuity.....

Does anybody have a formula for converting a life only annuity into a cash value annuity? Thanks!

Does it mean we'll need to grandfather the individual optional forms at whatever age it is under the old basis going forward if it is indeed more favorable?

The change in the defn of actuarial equivalence table I am referring to applies to optional forms (non 417e types)

A client of mine is interested in updating its Plan's definition of Actuarial Equivalence to a more recent table. Are there any issues in doing that? I believe we need to preserve the old basis (as a minimum) during the year of the switch?

Thank you, Scott.

With the lack of guidance on the content of the notice on benefit restrictions, I am just wondering what actuaries out there are using as far as the verbiage on the notice. Would anybody be willing to share what they had drafted? Thanks. I know some of these have been asked before, but I'm looking for consensus. 1) Lets say my 2008 AFTAP is 75% and my 2009 AFTAP is 65%. I gave the appropriate notice in 2008. Do I need to give another notice in 2009 even though nothing changed? The statute says the notice is required "after the plan has become subject to a restriction". I was subject to the restriction in 2008, nothing new in 2009, so it seems that no additional notice is required. Agree? 2) Lets say my 2008 AFTAP was 85% and the 2009 AFTAP is 75%. My plan only pays lump sums less than $5,000 and therefore the restrictions have no practical impact. Do I still need to give a notice? I think the conservative answer would be yes, but does everyone still agree?

They do have a 401k plan, but the plan sponsor only has one qualified db plan for which a Schedule B (and PBGC Form 1 and Schedule A) is required.

A client of mine, we just recently discovered that we had been filing Schedule B for 10 years with an incorrect Plan Number, though EIN was correct. The client prepares their own Form 5500, and so it look like it is only the Schedule B plus PBGC Form 1/Schedule A that had been filed with the incorrect PN. Do we need to file amended Schedule B for 10 years? How about PBGC Form 1/Schedule A? Hope somebody have had the same experience dealing with the issue.....

Thanks for the input, Grant. Does anybody else care to comment? I sure hope we do not have different interest rate definitions for different purposes. PPA is already enough painful as it is.

Are there any comments regarding my quote - Code Section 430(h)(2)(D)(ii) says that the election of the yield curve applies only for the purposes of determining minimum required contribution? Does it mean it applies only for minimum required contribution? Benefit restriction is under 436 and does that mean we need to revert it back to segment rates (if segment rates were used for the prior year valuation) for 436 purposes? Thanks.

Thanks for the reply, SoCalActuary. But does Code Section 430(h)(2)(D)(ii) say that the election of the yield curve applies only for the purposes of determining minimum required contribution? Am I missing the point? Thanks.

The EP News released by IRS on March 31st states that using yield curve and any of the lookback months for 2009 plan year is considered a reasonable interpretation of the statue and will not be challenged. My recollection is that the yield curve can be used only for the purposes of minimum required contribution. Does it mean the election to use yield curve applies only for the calculation of MRC? And for AFTAP purposes such as benefit restriction, we still need to use segment rates (if segment rates are what was adopted for the 2008 plan year)?

The participant is a retiree, where the form of payment is Life Annuity. There is no death benefit payable upon death. The participant accounts for 30% of the plan's liabilities (I had incorrectly stated the percentage before). I guess the question is : is it reasonable to assume higher mortality qx for this one participant, and the rest of the participants continue to use the plan's assumed mortality table (given the knowledge that the participant received a diagnosis of terminal cancer prior to the fiscal year end)?

Thanks, David. Yes, fiscal year is the same as Plan Year in this case. I thought that's the answer. I doubt we can make an additional assumption for this one participant who was diagnosed with cancer (higher qx values than the rest of the plan population), do you agree?

Plan Year 6/1/2008, plan has less than 15 participants, and one of them carries 80% of the liabilities. This one participant was diagnosed with terminal cancer April of last year, and passed away in August. Are we allowed to recognize events like these in the fas158 amounts as of 5/31/08?