AndyH

Merlin, I snuck these comments on this thread because I though there'd be no darn Yankee fans on it. And you of all people. But I guess there are Yankees everywhere. Nothing personal, but we have to route for your team to get squished by Blinky's distant cousins.

Pax, nothing else matters to Red Sox Nation today. Nothing. I appear to be the only non-Yankee fan in the nation to somewhat support THE DECISION (or to not totally oppose it at the time-in hindsight it was WRONG) . But THE DECISION may have had something to do with the fact that Pedro is scheduled to earn $17.5 million next year ($90,000+ per inning!), while Grady was scheduled to earn $0. And I don't think Grady could have moved Manny down to #7 in the batting order, either, if he wanted to. Something about power and authority.

There are detailed discussions about that particular Q&A on this Board if you wish to do a search. My concern is that you are locking in below market interest rates so that the plan is always underfunded even if interest rates rise.

But if the plan did not have a SHNEC and instead had a profit sharing contribution that had a last day requirement, then the allocation conditions (last day requirement) would NOT be ignored. The person would get $0 and 0% and $0.00, not 3% or 5% as someone stated. Got it now, Blink? Just kiddin. Blinky always gets it.

Your first sentence is incorrect. Any NHCE who "benefits under the plan" must receive the gateway. If you would rephrase your question with this correction I'll try to answer, but I don't understand the question.

It seems that severance paid while still working is included in both 415 and 414(s) comp, but severance paid after termination is included in 414(s) but not 415. Does this mean that someone who is laid off in December and receives only severance in January of the following year could cause a 415 violation if plan allocations include severance?

Just stumbled upon this while doing a search related to treatment of severance for testing purposes. Isn't the answer to the second question no, unless excluding severance passed the 414(s) ratio test?

No, it sounds more like a plan for reincarnated Zombies. Did the deceased cash checks for 2 years after he died? Sorry, cjk, couldn't resist having a little fun with it. Ws it direct deposit to some account that was maintained for 2 years?? And if so, was the account a joint account between the deceased and the spouse, and if so, what is the problem, other than maybe the 1099 reporting?

We're requiring Board resolutions specifying the amount per category because this is what the plan document (volume submitter) says is required. I'm not clear on whether the "requirement" that you referenced has actually changed.

But in Effen's extreme situation, the Plan Administrator, by choosing a particular interpretation, causes the NHCE to accrue $.01 (or whatever meaningless result it produces) whereas a different interpretation might require that the NHCE be provided with an accrual that has "substance" within the meaning of 11-(g). Hence my view that determining that the participant is benefiting is aggressive in this situation, in that it does not resolve the doubt in favor of the employee. But in other cases this interpretation could be quite useful.

Blinky, Thanks. And from Mike's comments it feels like our team just hit a two run triple when we were down three runs in the bottom of the ninth. At least we avoided the shutout this time against Mike's team.

Mike, this presupposes that the shrinking denominator interpretation is correct. Why is it correct? And to consider such a person benefiting defies common sense, does it not? Yeah, I know it's coming. I'm ducking. But what makes this the correct interpretation?

I'd argue that treating this person as benefiting may be arguable but is excessively aggressive since it can't be an intended consequence of cross referencing DOL regulations the purpose of which is to establish reasonable minimum service crediting rules.

Ditto, but I'm glad you specified "this bunch", as opposed to the old bunch that used to blank us each series when ROGER CLEMENS was our ace!

Cowboy up! And, as I said, if it's in the Herald, it's gotta be true: http://thetrack.bostonherald.com/moreTrack...bg?articleid=72

Effen, I'd be interested in knowing how the document defines the numerator and denominator in the fraction. This is an interesting question.

Mike, if it's in the Herald, it's gotta be true,right? Great story, but .......are we to believe that Pedro needed to be reminded of that? And, yeah, Red Sox/Cubs would be terrific. But a little cold maybe.

Hudson was quoted yesterday after the game as saying that Zito was the superior pitcher. I believe the quote was "far superior". Boy I hope that got passed on to Pedro. Let's just see.

I think you have a coverage failure, unless the person's average comp increases, resulting in an increase in the person's accrued benefit. The accrued benefit definition you describe does not in my view satisfy the accrual rules. What about top heavy minimum benefits? Isn't a plan with 4 HCEs and 1 NHCE likely to be top heavy? Just a thought.

Whatever that means, it works. Go Pedro.

You should bite the bullet and read the A, B, C, D rules of 1.401(a)(4)-7. Put it into Excel once, and it's not that bad at all. I cannot memorize it; my brain automatically rejects any requests for storage of that and the affiliated service rules, among other things.

Which is that the test never fails.......The client just runs out of money??

Merlin, yes, except that I am not sure that (d)5 says you must use the same rates. It says that anything available under a(4) may be used for 410(b), it does not say must. Consistency must be among employees and among plans, not necessarily among tests, at least I don't see that.

Merlin, I don't think that reference says that at all. That paragraph just gives you another option; it doesn't limit you in any way. Roman, you are on the right track. You use the increase in the account balance during the measurement period divided by the years benefitting during the measurement period divided by average comp. If the measurement period were all years, then you would be right, but it does not have to be.

You are welcome. I've been helped more than I've helped others. That is a good outline, BTW. I've used it as well.