My 2 cents

Do you perform 401(a)(4) test based on 415 comp or comp while a participant?

To make that a bit clearer - calculate lump sum without regard to 415 based on plan provisions. Call that "$A". Calculate lump sum equivalent of participant's 415 limitation (taking into account 100% of pay compensation limit and any adjustments for service or participation under 10 years) based on statutory basis or plan's equivalence basis (whichever produces the lower amount). Note that plan's benefit formula does not come into play here. Call that $B. Lump sum limit is lower of $A or $B.

Distribution of salary deferrals before age 59 1/2 without a distributable event? Payment to a plan participant not required under the plan provisions?

I would expect that if the accountant wants the numbers based on SOA mortality and someone gives them the numbers based on the SOA mortality, only those numbers will be shown on the accountant's report. And what would be the harm of that?

Is there anything to stop the enrolled actuary from providing updated ASC-960 (FAS 35) calculations using the SOA 2014 table with projections? That is chargeable work, isn't it? And the calculations needed for accounting purposes are not subject to the "enrolled actuary's best estimate" requirements - the choice of assumptions for those purposes belongs to the plan sponsor. Wouldn't it suffice, at most, to point out that the assumptions were those requested (without a strongly worded qualification being necessary to the effect that the SOA mortality basis is not reasonable in the opinion of the enrolled actuary)? Would it not be worthwhile to avoid having the qualified box checked?

It is my understanding that the maximum deductible contribution for a defined benefit plan has nothing to do with 25% (or 31%) of payroll. That comes into play in determining how much of a defined contribution plan contribution is deductible. The DB maximum is related solely to the plan assets and plan liabilities (generally, the amount needed to fund the plan up to 150% with adjustments related to expected future compensation levels), without any thought as to its relationship to covered payroll. If the DB contribution is high relative to covered payroll, then limitations would apply with respect to deductions for the DC plan (if over 6% of covered payroll).

Too late!

When you say "doc", do you mean "plan document" or "the medical doctor who joined the gastroenterology practice"? I may be wrong, but to the extent an appraisal is required, I would expect that it would have to be performed by someone both expert in the valuation of real estate and totally independent of the plan sponsor. I would not think that an "appraisal" done by an accountant (engaged by the sponsor) or a managing partner would suffice.

Not a lawyer, but: Watch out - amending the plan to permit a select group of otherwise frozen-out employees in (as may be required to carry out the contractual obligations to the two people) would likely be subject to coverage testing in some fashion.

If it is important enough, as long as the storage media are not damaged, the data can be retrieved. But it had better be pretty important to go to the trouble!

Just out of curiosity, if the separating participant is over NRA and drawing SS benefits, when they separate from service with the sponsor, why aren't their plan benefits being paid? Remember, if you are filing a 2014 SSA form, you are generally reporting people who separated from service in 2013.

A cash balance plan is a defined benefit plan, no ifs ands or buts. And participants in defined benefit plans cannot be required to pay any costs of plan administration. Example: Participant A is being divorced and a Qualified Domestic Relations Order has been submitted to the plan. Participant A need not absorb any of the cost of administering the QDRO, which must be borne by the plan or the sponsor. Remember, the plan defines the value of the participant's benefit. There is no direct correspondence between the account balance and the assets held by the plan. So, unlike a defined contribution plan where the expenses are generally borne either by the specific participants or the participants as a whole, if the plan/sponsor has to pay $10,000 to administer a complicated QDRO, it all comes out of the plan or the sponsor's pocket and neither the individual participant nor the participants as a whole have to absorb any of that cost. The only exception would be special arrangements for such things as payment by wire transfer.

It seems to say that. If this requires more for people working after Normal Retirement Date than just continuing to add pay credits (if applicable) and interest credits and then converting to an annuity using a factor that goes down as age goes up in a cash balance plan with no other adjustments specified and no language calling for the issuance of suspension notices, how long will plan sponsors have to bring administration and plan provisions into compliance? I had thought that the law specified that the account balance provides whatever is payable and that's it. Is this regulation consistent with the requirements of the law?

Does that rule (restrictions on distributions to the 25 highest-paid HCEs) apply to defined benefit plans covering only highly compensated employees?

If the plan had not invested in life insurance but paid the same death benefit, how would the tax reporting have been handled? Why would the $150,000 not be treated the same as a self-insured cash death benefit from a pension plan? The fact that there had been an insurance policy owned by the plan should not affect how the proceeds as paid out are taxed, should it? Or are the tax rules concerning such benefits different?

Would it be the case that the plan owns the life insurance policy and that, after the participant dies, the proceeds are treated as plan assets which are then used to pay the plan's death benefit? In that case, would the fact that the funds came from an insurance policy be unrelated to the tax treatment of the death benefit paid to the beneficiary?

Probably not the case at all! If this is at all typical, the 92-year old probably retired years ago. It is unlikely that the 92-year old is being given any choices - in all but the largest plans, everyone already in pay status will have an annuity purchased, providing ongoing payments in the same amount and form as before the plan termination. And this does not sound like one of the largest plans!

What is the auditor's position on capital gains realized when the plan sells stock worth much more than it cost? Surely when one enjoys a capital gain like that in a qualified plan trust it should be obvious that the state would be entitled to no tax revenue at all! Why should gains on real estate investments be treated any differently?

Born in 1929 is too old? Are they using the 1937 mortality table for pricing? Are they afraid of some kind of anti-selection (based on the idea that any 85-year old wanting an annuity must be in extraordinarily great health so as to live years longer than would be predicted by any reasonable mortality table)? Have you looked into one of those annuity search firms? I would imagine they know insurance companies able to handle older annuitants. I have seen plans with provisions that change the QOSA to a 66 2/3% joint form if the insurance company cannot handle a 75% joint form. That has always puzzled me since I think every insurance company still in existence should have no problem with a 75% form. Being unable to have that kind of flexibility went out the window when computers generally became available and hand-calculated rate tables became obsolete. Same thing for annuity costs for people over age 80.

A standard interest credit (if not particularly low, say 4% - 5%) together with annuity conversion factors that decline with age might together result in the equivalent annuity going up somewhere around 7- 8% per year after 65, even without any pay credits. Might that be enough to avoid there being a problem?

If you are so inclined, you could celebrate Cinco de Mayo on a timely basis!

Should we expect guidance concerning this issue?

Do you get to factor Section 436 restrictions into non-discrimination testing? Under normal circumstances, they would not be recognized for minimum funding purposes.

Don't forget that as a defined benefit plan, the cash balance plan must have an enrolled actuary and is subject to minimum funding and (generally) PBGC premium filings (as well as IRC Section 436 limitations and all else that pertains to defined benefit plans). It's not just a matter of performing non-discrimination testing. Would the enrolled actuary have adequate software for handling the non-discrimination testing as well as all of the funding requirements?

There weren't any benefits paid were there? Plan merger is not a distributable event, I think.