My 2 cents

No ifs, ands or buts, service for vesting purposes cannot be frozen. It is not required that vesting be granted when a defined benefit plan adopts a hard freeze, but adopting a hard freeze could result in the occurrence of a partial termination. Granting full vesting at the same time as the freeze would render that issue more or less moot. Not sure what the rules are for a defined contribution plan.

Oh, now you have to worry about whether anything at all should have been paid, based on the terms of the plan, the participant's marital status, etc. If it was a defined benefit plan, the pension might have been forfeited had the participant died without a spouse (maybe even if there was a spouse, the check having been issued before the Retirement Equity Act became effective). If you do reissue the check, would you make it out to the same payee and let them worry about how to cash it?

Nicer language? Why? And who says it isn't part of your job to train them?

Did not make myself clear - My point was that cash balance plans do not control costs well at all. As for the impact of the SOA mortality tables, unless one assumes no pre-retirement mortality, the SOA tables will impact the funding target of people in a cash balance plan who are not yet at the assumed retirement age. The funding target for people not yet at the assumed retirement age cannot be just set equal to the current account balance. The funding target will reflect interest accumulations to assumed retirement age based on the plan's interest credit rules and then discounting at the segment rates (and, if pre-retirement mortality is assumed, with mortality for the deferral period) back to the valuation date. The expected pay credit for the year, similarly, cannot just be used as is as the target normal cost. These things can operate in unpredictable ways.

In my experience, cash balance plans fail to control costs the same way that defined contribution plans do. Still subject to minimum funding rules, contributions not generally equal to pay credits, etc. The idea here is presumably to create something allowing larger contributions than would be permitted under a defined contribution plan, but don't forget that the PBGC takes a cut, investment losses (or reduced discount rates etc.) have to be amortized over 7 years, and just think for a second what will happen when (if) the IRS requires the use of Society of Actuaries mortality rates.

Just wondering - how willing would the 401(k) plan be to initiate foreclosure if the mortgage payments are not properly made? Or are owner-only 401(k) plans exempt from fiduciary rules?

Are in-service distributions after 59 1/2 something that CAN be amended into a plan? Is the ability to permit in-service distributions only after 62 something PPA added for only DB plans (except those able to justify an earlier normal retirement age) or all plans in general?

In a cash balance plan, especially if one is dealing with people below Normal Retirement Age, the amount required to be contributed is not going to generally equal the value of the year's accrual. I think they are looking for a plan where they can keep track of individual values, like in a defined contribution plan, but not subject to as low a contribution limit. But it is not a defined contribution plan and it is not that unlikely that differences will arise. Of course, it is possible for a cash balance plan, due to Section 436 of the IRC, to have to place restrictions on distributions. If that were to happen, one or more of the owners might not react well.

I don't think the law change affects other deadlines. Which means that your scenario could happen. Who actually reads the SARs anyway? For a DB plan, how much attention is paid to the Annual Funding Notices? And don't get me started about all those "privacy notices"! Too bad the government cannot effectively require identity thieves and hackers to provide privacy notices. Now that would be useful!

1. There may be some issues with the AFTAP being low. If below 60%, would there be any accrual at all? Would it be permissible to allow payment faster than under a straight life annuity? 2. Are there any other people covered by the plan? If so, it might be necessary to worry about 25-high restrictions. 3. Can it be clearly established that the contribution has the same value as the benefit to be distributed? That would normally not be the case,but I am not sure how 1-person cash balance plans with a participant past normal retirement date come out. 4. If the participant has more income,then the "special treatment" being given to the plan contribution and distribution might not save as much as $15k in FICA/SECA taxes. And I am not sure how these things work together for FICA/SECA tax purposes. Are the taxes due based on a pre-deduction earnings basis?

If there were a minimum amount of wages needed for FICA withholding, it would surely be well below $50,000! There may be some exceptions for students (but that would probably be inconsistent with there having been $50,000 reportable income) or for certain kinds of non-covered governmental work (i.e., if the employer is a governmental entity not participating in Social Security). Would either of those apply? Otherwise, how could someone earn $50,000 and not pay FICA taxes?

Just checking - by this, do you mean that if the plan uses safe-harbor definitions for hardship withdrawals, it is doubtful that asbestos removal would be a sufficient reason to approve a hardship withdrawal?

I may be misinterpreting the question, but I think that the question was more like this: Employee, age 60, terminates from Company A, and begins working at Company B (unrelated to Company A). Rolls 401(k) money from Company A's plan to Company B's plan. Let us assume that the employee also contributes to the Company B plan. Time passes, and the participant, still working for Company B, has attained age 70 1/2. Does the employee have to take a minimum distribution on the portion of the 401(k) balance derived from the Company A rollover, or is the fact that the employee is still working for Company B enough to push off having to start taking RMDs? Would one get a different answer if the employee had not contributed to the Company B plan, so the entire balance in the Company B 401(k) plan is entirely attributable to the rollover from Company A?

"What! You tricked me into getting everything done before the actual deadline? How dare you!"

If you think that's bad, what about the other discussion thread, where the plan sponsor is worrying NOW about whether a 12/31/16 deadline will really be extended to the next following business day! Now there's world-class procrastination!

Think how much easier things will be in 2017!

Would the AFTAP adjustment reflect all annuities purchased except for HCEs and former HCEs? If the FTAP is below 80% as of the beginning of the next plan year but the purchase might push it over 80%, it might be worth the effort to (a) identify from plan records which individuals included in the purchase would have been HCEs or former HCEs and (b) obtain a breakdown of the total purchase price into the part attributable to them and the part attributable to everyone else. Anyone who was an HCE when they separated from service would always be a former HCE irrespective of how much time has passed. As the FTAP after the purchase is still over 100% (well-funded plan!), perhaps something reasonable is good enough. After all, if the FTAP is over 100%, any amount to be added would, while bringing the AFTAP closer to 100%, never bring it down below 100%, so the plan would be exempt from quarterlies in the following year anyway.

I may be wrong on this, but if someone is being paid $15,000 per month but only earned $90,000 in the lookback year, then they are a non-HCE and they have to be treated as such.

Not sure if this is correct, but once someone becomes a participant, as long as the plan retains liability for them, even if not in an eligible status, they remain a participant. Naturally, once someone becomes a participant, falling out of an eligible status (i.e., hourly to salary or, in this case, non-HCE to HCE) cannot result in a forfeiture.

Don't HCEs who are not Key Employees have to be given top heavy accruals/contributions when the plan is top heavy?

Do people see what I see in the new final regulations concerning the handling of the quarterly contribution requirements? 1. The regulations finally authorize the use of standing elections to apply balances to meet quarterly requirements,at least for plan years beginning on or after 1/1/16 (if not sooner). They can only be based on the prior year's minimum - no breaks if 90% of the current year's minimum is lower. 2. Questions had been raised whether an election to use balances before the first quarterly deadline sufficient to cover all 4 quarterly amounts could take into account interest, piece by piece, on all 4 quarterly amounts until used (that is, it had been suggested that interest on the amount elected only runs from the beginning of the plan year to the date of election). That appears to have been overturned by the new regulations, which clearly indicate that each unused piece of elected balance would accrue, for purposes of satisfying quarterlies, interest to the date the quarterly was due. 3. Even better, the regulations restore the pre-PPA ability to credit interest on unused pieces of cash contributions from the date made to the date applied against a subsequent quarterly, at least for plan years beginning on or after 1/1/16.

And, of course, if we are talking about a defined benefit plan, the parties to the QDRO cannot be charged for the cost of the plan dealing with it.

Just wondering - there are always announcements at actuarial conferences concerning anti-trust laws and the sponsoring organization's anti-trust policies. Is it acceptable to use these forums to inquire about the pricing/expense structure of other companies?

Would they qualify under 29 CFR 2520.104-50 to wait until next year to attach? There would still be some requirements to satisfy, but it sure sounds like a 2-consecutive plan year period with one of the two plan years being less than 7 months long. The 2015 5500 filling would have to include an accountant's report covering both the short 2014 plan year and the full-length 2015 plan year. Would that help?

Well, the Schedule C does say "...to report information required for each person who received, directly or indirectly, $5,000 or more in total compensation...in connection with services rendered to the plan or the person's position with the plan during the plan year." I can see how the auditors can reach the conclusion that the investment manager must be reported on the Schedule C, since the instruction on the form does not restrict itself to compensation paid from the plan. However, it is my understanding that not reporting any expenses not paid, directly or indirectly, from the plan is a fairly common practice.