AndyH

It works for me. Just a thought, however, about practicality. How long before the other Doctors want a plan? Or Doctors merge into your group and already have a plan. This sounds like a candidate for a DB/DC combo, or a Floor/Offset, maybe safe harbor or maybe general tested. But if you can get all those Doctors to agree to your plan, go for it. You actually have a restructured safe harbor plan.

Bob, the funding method most likely is irrelevant to the situation. The funding method does not determine the amount that a participant is entitled to. It merely illustrates in general terms on whose behalf the money is intended to go to provided the plan continues to normal retirement date. Plan termination changes everything. What goes in does not match what goes out. If you are certain that you need a contribution of $x to have enough money to terminate the plan, then you need to ask the plan actuary whether or not x will be a deductible contribution either through the normal valuation calculation or by adjusting the "current liability" interest rate to provide a higher "unfunded projected current liability" which may be greater than the normal deduction limit. The actuary may default to a high current liability interest rate but with knowledge of what you wish to accomplish may be able to lower that rate and increase your deduction range. Second, if the plan is subject to PBGC termination insurance you may be able to contribute and deduct any termination shortfall as part of the termination process, not the valuation process. You need to hire a good actuary right away if you do not already have one that can help you with these matters. Regarding you compensation question, the relevant question is how much is the person's lump sum if his current pay is $100K versus how much the lump sum if his current pay is $70K. What the IA funding method illustration report says is almost certainly irrelevant to reality when you interject a plan termination into a low interest rate environment.

My comments were meant as an inside joke. An early draft of his outline would have required 4 days to cover, and that is without the songs! And, Tom, do you recall that I said the St. Louis arch was a great illustration of the gateway? How ironic that was now.

This may only be know to Red Sox Nation Central: Our_Papi_.doc

did you get to imputing permitted disparity and rate banding? I bet those would have had the crowd in hysterics

True, but what else are you going to do if you are in the same division as the evil empire and you have not won in 86 years? Now, reign in everybody's spending (yeah, right). Gotta love those labor unions for people making millions. Why is that legal? Because of the antitrust exemption? How about doing away with that as well?

Sorry, but I must clearly dissent. This is the description of the client: I don't think that "finding" a 204(h) notice or a termination resolution for such a client is a prudent suggestion. Doing such a thing will take you down a road that will end in disaster.

Is this guy still your client? Does he still have a plan? Has he perfomed or will he perform any duties related to the plan since the plan year ended, such as speaking to you or signing a 5500 form? Those are the duties of the plan administrator. If so, how can you say that he was not employed 09/30/2004? Is it your argument that he will rehire himself on ocassion? Just one opinion, but I don't buy into it. I think a contribution is due.

I wasn't there but a colleague who was said your session was terrific. .......and something about some funny guy dressed as a scarecrow is making round the office (there are 70 or so people in my office).

Tom, any a(4) testing issues of note come up? how about that 5:00 last day of year entry date trick (I call it the swinging entry gate)?

Pompous? Is that the perception? Whatever it is is the result of enduring 86 years of Yankee trash talking.

smhjr, the plan for the associates has only one "plan", that for deferrals. The other plan actually has 3 plans for testing purposes, one with deferrals, one with a match, and one with a profit sharing part. Each of these three cannot be mixed with the other. These different types are "mandatorily dissagregated" for testing purposes, even if they are within the same document and are filed under the same 5500. So, when I say you can aggregate the associates plan, I mean deferrals to deferrals. That is tested under 410(b) and ADP either separately or together (aggregated). The profit sharing "plan" has nothing it can be aggregated with. The match "plan" also has nothing it can be aggregated with. Is that clearer? And, smhjr, associates in a law firm are typically the lower paid lawyers who have not achieved partner status, so they are usually a mixture of HCEs and NHCEs. And they typically get treated like dirt, relatively speaking.

Why are (most) of you trying to skip the readings? I had extensive DB experience before I took that test a few years ago and still learned quite a bit from the readings. I don't know if the readings are the same or not now, but part of it was FAS#87 and FAS#88 and they wanted you to read all of that. That is where I drew the line. There were two simple questions about those areas on the tests. Reading that blah was IMO a waste of time. But the rest of it was informative and useful. Having taken all the ASPA exams, the ONLY material that I would encourage skipping (or just skimming) was the FAS "doctrines". At the C-2 level you need only to know the basics, such as the elements of the net periodic pension cost or the difference between a settlement and a curtailment. And I HATED the C-3 reading but eventually managed to get through it before and after many dozens of naps.

Red Sox Nation calling Lori?

I agree that the ball starts rolling down the other side of the hill if we do not win tonight, if for no other reason than our pitching gets shaky, Wakefield, ?????, then Pedro on short rest. But, if the worst case happened, it would be a different curse, something more like the goat curse. The Babe's been exorcized. Maybe it would be the pitchfork curse, or the Beer curse. Not the Bambino though. Actually it would be Sunday night so it would be the Halloween curse. Just don't let Mike Myers pitch, whatever happens!

Boy, is Blinky having a tough week or what? His ace pitcher hitches a ride to Boston and actually DOES break the Curse. Then he gets battered by Moe, Larry & Curly. Now he's the victim of identity theft. Geez.

Prediction: 9-5 Red Sox in Game 4. Who's your Daddy, er um, I mean WS MVP (still tired)? p.s. Is Tavares aka Freddy Krueger going to hit somebody in the head tonight? It sure looked like he was trying last night.

Certainly never a need to apologize when asking a question. You have several different questions. 1. Do you need to aggregate the associates plan with the cross tested PS plan for a(4) or 410(b). NO, you are not permitted or required to do so. The confusion here may lie in the potential need for the average benefits percentage test. For that part of the a(4) and 410(b) tests, IF NEEDED, you bring in everything. But that is not the same as aggregating. 2. If the two plans separately pass coverage, must you aggregate the k plans for ADP purposes. Answer: You can but need not. If you aggregate the K plans for ADP you must aggregate for 410(b). But this does not affect the cross tested PS plan because that is considered another plan. You are only aggregating the deferral portions of each plan. This has no affect on cross testing. 3. Must you aggregate for top heavy? Yes if a Key employee participates in the associates plan (which is unlikely). But that also has no affect on the cross testing. So, in summary, I see no problems with what you propose.

MichaelO, please slow down a bit. More information is needed. You actually have 4 plans for testing purposes. You have a K plan for associates, and K, M, and PS for others. You say "they want to amend the non-associate plan for cross testing". OK, fine, that is the PS plan. Then you say "Since I would have to aggregate the Plans for coverage and 401(a)(4)". That is where you lose us. You do not aggregate the PS with anything else for 410(b) or 401(a)(4). You are not permitted to do so. Those plans are manditorily disaggregated. Are you referring to top heavy testing? If so, that will not affect a(4) and 410(b) for these plans because they are manditorily disaggregated. Maybe that helps you rephrase your questions?

mbozek answered the questions directly, thank you. Harry O, can you give an example of how that might apply? Are you envisioning an amendment just prior to plan termination, for example?

Just a "let's-all-lighten-up" aside. Quoting GBurns: GBurns, you surely would not make a good 412(i) salesman. In that world, it's what you deduct, not what you get.

Ok, then I'll ask it another way. Company A has a DB plan that would be a safe harbor except that the benefit formula is the sum of the benefit formula that applies to everyone and the additional amount, if any, itemized on Attachment A. One person and one accrued benefit is listed on Attachment A. Question: What laws, if any, have recently or will soon change soon that might affect the person listed on Attachment A? To ircreader: I know of no "position" of the IRS other than such a plan would be subject to the 401(a)(4) general test.

GBurns, I am not sure that we are talking about the same animal. I suggest that you refer to pax' Wyatt link. That provides a good explanation.

Belgarath, according to my clock you posted at 11:29 this morning that you needed some sleep. I'm just reading this, at 1:30. At about 11:30 I had the need to take an early lunch and I fell asleep in my car (not driving , thankfully) for about 25 minutes. Feel much better now. Highly recommended to all of Red Sox Nation. We'll all be zonked out on Wednesday, Thursday, and if necessary, Friday!

pax, that is a blast from the past, but I happen to remember that one. What happened to richard, anyways? He has not posted for 3 years. He had a lot of good contributions to these boards. gburns, would you mind elaborating on the potential impact of the changes you mention, or point me to an article? I have not managed to keep up with that.