AndyH

Lou, I don't disagree with your comment, but the regulation adds some uncertainty in my opinion. From 1.430(d)-(1)(c)(1)(i) below. If an allocation is forfeited on account of a deemed distribution, does that mean it is not counted under this paragraph, which seemingly exempts benefits paid as of the valuation date?

Perhaps the real question is whether or not the allocation that is forfeited is in the Normal Cost for an end of year valuation. In Relius, for example, I'm not sure it can be a forfeiture in the Summary of Accounts report and in the Normal Cost without some manipulation.

Would it be improper to amend the plan now, retroactive to the beginning of the year, to add a general in-service withdrawal provision for profit sharing $$? Just floating it.

Ananda, you got some really good replies here from some very knowledgeable people. It is not likely that you will find them to be incorrect.

Us Red Sox fans would have preferred that the Cleveland baseball team be named the Oceaneers. ” WHAT DO YOU EXPECT WHEN THEY BUILD A BALLPARK ON THE OCEAN?” – OIL CAN BOYD, AFTER A GAME AT CLEVELAND STADIUM IS POSTPONED DUE TO FOG

Agree - check the document - but also remember that the current pvab is based on the current survivor benefit, not the original j&100.

But yeah if time is up it might be a good idea to take it and have it checked later. Just read what you sign before you sign it. When you get the document, check and make sure the 8% is specified in the document because that is high these days obviously.

I think you have it generally correct, except that a 10% penalty applies to the excess unless there is an election to not take into account such excess contributions for the tax (don't know why somebody deemed this necessary). The election is addressed in 4972(c)(7).

OK thanks for the clarifications. This is what my understanding was as well.

Yes good suggestions. In my case, the last two bullets are the critical ones and I would like to get more detailed in the questions; I know the answers to the others.

Great idea Dave. Unfortunately I have zippo experience with Google Docs or anything similar.

You both think there must be a reversion for a transfer to occur? I agree the document language cannot say reallocate, but if it says revert, can't it be amended to transfer all the excess instead? Just an off-hand reaction, not something I have researched lately.

Thank you.

Have a prospect (existing plans) that may be in an ASG and may not be aware of the rules. Does anyone know of a fairly simple questionnaire that can be sent to the prospect to start the screening for this? Thanks for any help.

Agree. The deceased is a participant. One participant plan.

I've been doing this since 1982 and I don't recall a generally accepted change in how ongoing participants versus rehires are treated for SOB purposes. Back them I believe that most DB documents were individually designed so the provisions would vary from plan to plan. I don't recall a pattern of change, except for the age discrimination rules.

Thanks for the replies and the link. Yes I agree there's a 411 issue issue if there is no amendment after the plan year change and there is no credit for the short period. So basically the amendment should provide for a proration for a short year if the document is otherwise silent.

Mike, would you elaborate please? Doesn't the fact that these changes were a function of a plan amendment provide a fresh start for 411?

Well one that I have first hand knowledge of is still using 8.50%. Not sure how that flies these days.

An irony in my mind is that multiemployer actuaries that certified funding results based on 8.50% or higher interest rates precipitated much of this. Who policed that? Or are they the police themselves?

Right, none of us adequately understand the situation.

Well continued Best Wishes in retirement AtA, but at least I've been an actuary for a few years myself now. Not that I would ever fill your shoes!

Congratulations and Best Wishes David.

CB providers. Be wary of going against the "dark siders" as Tom Poje used to say.

I find the question a bit confusing so I'll start with your last comment Austin. If you cherry pick the people in each component plan, the classifications are not reasonable, so each component plan must pass the ratio percentage test. Yes that is definitely true. Once you pass that hurdle, you test as if you have two separate plans, and if each rate group in each component does not pass 70% ratio percentage, you must proceed to the average benefits test just like you were testing any two separate plans that fail ratio/percentage but pass the NCT. Does his help?