AndyH

Are you not the leading 412(i) proponent on these Boards? Or was that before the IRS' recent announcements? But I guess you're right. I should have let you go away quietly with your last comment. And I quote: "To WDIK: OK so I lied about 8/28 being my last posting. I have just one more thing to say and this really is my last post. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Right. 1.401(a)(4)-5(b)(2). The rules would also be contained within the plan document.

Well, I know little about these either except the basics. Your comments and questions make perfect sense to me. What you are describing does not make sense to me. Check out the proposer. I'd be interested in hearing about whoever is proposing this scheme. Nothing about it sounds legitimate except the 415 limit, and that is a surprise.

No, but we will deem you to be on the three year filing cycle.

I know it's never easy, but please tell the Doctor to take $200k and pay his FICA taxes, cause those taxes are desperately needed for the manned space flight to Mars.

Seems to me this has absolutely nothing to do with the gateway issues. This is either a situation where two plans pass 410(b) separately and are tested separately or they are combined and have the match components tested under benefits, rights, and features using simple head counts, nothing to do with allocation rates or equivalent benefit rates.

Assume that a PBGC premium calc is being done for 7/1/2004. Assume the asset valuation method for funding was market value but is switched to a smoothing method 7/1/2004 that amounts to 120% of market value. The premium instructions seen to call for the use of 6/30/2004 (market) assets, but would allow the use of 7/1/2004 provided that the actuary adjusts for the difference. In this manner, an asset method change cannot be used to reduce PBGC premiums in the first year. Is this right? But this all presumes that the change is effective 7/1/2004. If time permits, I suppose the change could be made effective to the prior valuation date, without phase in, and then utilized currently to reduce the premium, right?

Yes.

You don't need to include the DC stuff in the DB general test, even the ABPT, unless you are cross testing. Bet that'll make your day. 1.410(b)-5(e)3

just tell me when and it's a deal.

Tom, could be he's on the three year testing cycle for all plans. I gotta start doing that too.

Blinky, did you happen to look at the numbers? Both the PS and traditional DB numbers make absolutely no sense, never mind the "hybrid" numbers.

Well, the flight in October 2001 wasn't a bundle of fun either! And then there was the anthrax scare. But I just found out I won't be going this year, unless of course....

I do see your point. But the PBGC Notice must disclose the late or missed quarterlies by the SAR date and that would seem to satisfy the ERISA 101(d)(1) requirement, and I believe the PBGC Notice requirement makes you go back and disclose any previously undisclosed missed quarterlies (if and when the notice is required). So it does not appear to me on the surface that these are totally unrelated, rather it seems that the second (PBGC Notice) is reinforcing the first. But having said that, you would understand the leglislative history better than the rest of us, so I won't belabor the point.

Oops. I stand corrected. Blinky is right. Thanks for the refresher.

How did we all miss this one? Dom et al must have been right! [Link removed-too late for the fun.] maybe I should have put this under humor? This definitely rates a WOW.

No, Blinky, the 80% drops to 50% for 415 purposes. Jquazza has that right.

I'm looking the 2003 instructions, instructions under Item 6 Plan Administrator Certification, page 37 of the 2003 instructions. "The Participant Notice is due no later than two months after the due date (or extended due date) for the Form 5500 series for the prior plan year. For example, ....." The Participant Notice is related to the variable premium. There is only one notice, not two. And this is where late quarterlies must be disclosed. And as far as I can tell, if you never are required to issue the Notice, you never need to disclose late quarterlies. At least this is how I understand these items.

Post with good comment but inappropriate name deleted.

MGB, the PBGC Schedule A instructions say that the notice is due 2 months following the 5500 due date for the prior year (including extensions), which makes it due the same day as the SAR.

No, Mike. But I would like to say hello to you some time.

I think you've answered your own question. You can't just give increased accrued benefits to people who happen to have been over the 415 limit. If it's frozen, if's frozen. Benefits exceeding the 415 limit are not accrued benefits. Think if the plan was not top heavy. Then only the owner accrued benefits when the 415 limit increased. What about 410(b) and 401(a)(26)?

There is no clear answer to this. I'll offer an opinion. Others may disagree. If Mike Preston disagrees (and he might), go with his answer I think your suggested approach db/db years dc/dc years is the right way to do it. But I would think that since you are permissively aggregating them that you could use total years benefitting in either plan. But you've got a couple of other problems or potential problems-401(a)(26) if your one DB NHCE quits, plus you've got a grant of past service more than 5 years in the DB plan which you must test for discrimination, and with a medical practice you've got a good chance of not passing.

Right, pax, I agree. But in reality, if you have a decent formula, a 5 year cliff vesting, and a generally professional work force, then you won't have many $5,000 cashouts, which are the particular facts in my case. But isn't this all GCM 39310 anyways, so if that doesn't apply to DB plans then we'd be back to the 5 year lookback. But I am told that our experience has been that if a one break in service has occurred, the IRS does not require 100% vesting. And, yes, I believe that there would need to be a pattern of cashouts as well, to the extent possible. DMB, I'm not sure of the answer to your question, but I would think that 100% vesting would be required for a partially vested person that has not been cashed out. I think one key is when does a forfeiture occur under the terms of the plan and I would think that a cashout or occurrence of 5 breaks would be needed.

No, the standard approach is to have language in the document that automatically does this. We call it "catch all" language. But absent such language, 1.401(a)(4) -11(g) provides the roadmap, which is the context of Tom's comment.