AndyH

The requirement is that "The employees who benefit under the formula being tested also benefit under the other plan on a reasonable and unform basis". So the uniformity requirement is on the DC plan, not the DB plan. There is a long discussion of this on this board somewhere.

Blinky, have you learned anything further about this? It would imperil many plan designs.

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Den/6460/1999mar31.htm

Were the marching guards chanting Ke-Oh in the castle in the Wizard of Oz?

TBob, it sounds to me like the lawyer you mention lacks an understanding of the mathematics of cross testing. As you know, giving a young NHCE more to pass the test is the exact opposite of the goal. The goal of course is to give the young NHCE less and justify that because he is younger. If anything, that is reverse age discrimination.

Thank you, Kirk. Outstanding analysis.

We in the Northeast know what is coming!

Thank you. Some day I may take you up on that. I know there are also some good ones on these boards as well. On this subject, I cannot say how frustrating it was to work with several very high priced ERISA attorneys including some from the biggest oufits in Boston, DC and NYC on the last GUST restatement process and find that they had NO CLUE relative to many DB plan document issues in plans that they drafted and we were asked to review/advise on. A minor example is a setback for females in an actuarial equivalency definition. Another is a provision allowing a lump sum (over 5K) but not monthly payments. Another is major errors in top heavy language that was drafted in 1984 but never caught. And that's not even getting into the 415 and 417(e) stuff.

Thanks for the feedback. I cannot elaborate on the nature of the sale without risking identifying the company. Let's just say it is not a regular corporation so some different rules may apply. Your comment about ERISA Counsel is always valid. It is just that in my world ERISA counsel often looks to actuarial firm that employs ERISA counselors (although not acting in such capacity on behalf of clients) among other specialists for guidance, which of course always points back to ERISA counsel, and the client is stuck in the middle of the circle.

Company A had underfunded DB plan and is a member of a controlled group with Company B, which has no employees. Company B is not a signatory to the plan. Most employees are shifted to Company B which is more financially viable and Company B is sold to Company C. Shaky Company A still has pension plan. After 1 year Company A is insolvent and PBGC takes over pension plan. Can they claim assets of Company C? Would the answer be different if the time frame were 6 months, 2 yeare, 5 years? In other words, if there is a lookback period, how long does it last?

Actually, perhaps I should amend my answer because I know a plan that does not address what happens if someone dies or passes away. The client required that every such reference in the plan and SPD had to be changed to "passing on". There is no death benefit section; only a passing on benefit section.

The answer is specific to the provisions of the particular plan document.

Do we think the Kerry administration will allow this design? They'll probably bring in George McGovern as Treasury Secretary, unless they can find somebody more to the left. Maybe Howard Dean? Does he support discretionary cross tested plans?

...obviously, Howard errr pax is having a hard time these days deciding between watching the Sox game or the Weather Channel ........

Earl, when the NHCE becomes eligible for the DB plan give him the top heavy minimum in the DB plan, not the DC plan. And then it is deductible. The deferrals are no longer an issue for deductibility.

This is probably the first time, but I must differ with Blinky a bit on this (must be my arrogance). Somebody who becomes a participant in a frozen plan is a participant, so they get counted for things like SAR, SPD distribution, as well as participant count for things like audit requirements, 412(l), etc. I have a frozen plan now that was frozen except for eligibilitity (done a few months later) and about a dozen $0 benefit people snuck in . Now the count is dwindling down from 150 to maybe 110 now, and that includes some $0 people who will count until they terminate employment. And it is subject to 412(l) and has to have an audit.

I have in front of me a Derrin Watson outline (a few years old) and in it he states that some practitioners take the position that community property ownership should not be treated as direct ownership, but that he disagrees.

Understood. Must be quite difficult.

Seems to me that, absent a time machine which can beam the felon back into the days when bad boy clauses were legal, that all you can do is twist his arm as suggested here. I worked on a case a few years back in which 1 of 2 owners embezzed big bucks, went to jail, got paroled, and later started his company pension despite the considerable efforts of the lawyers for owner #2.

CYA. Tell him his penalties today so that he knows the extent of the problem. He's still got until midnight. The filings will generate a delinquincy notice then he'll have a short amount of time before the penalty becomes 100%. What do you mean by you "certified his Schedule B"? I assume that you are not an actuary, else you would know the funding deficiency penalties.

No bell ringeth here.

Like the guy below said over and over in the "Storm of the Century" written BTW by a die hard Red Sox fan, "Give me what I want and I will go away".

I heard the problem well stated on WEEI radio last night within the context of the Patriot's winning 2 of the last 3 Super Bowls. New England fans have a sense that they are not worthy of such success. Sounds like the Curse of the Bambino to me. But maybe Nomar has broken it for us.

Rhonda, I think both 2002 and 2003 were at the Hilton. Previous to that they were at the Hyatt. Casual or business casual is the norm. Some dress up. Some dress down. As for the receptions, many dress up but that is certainly not necessary. It is a matter of what your preference is, and that of anybody you happen to be going with.

What about the Red Sox prospects in 2004?