AndyH

“Fish and visitors smell in three days.” qui a dit que ?

1. No* 2. No Generally, you project the allocation to testing age, convert that to an annuity, and use that annuity for testing purposes for both rate group and average benefits testing. * In the 1.401(a)(4)-8 regulation, however, there is "Modified general test" which allows you to test the allocations as if they were DC allocations under certain conditions. As far as I can tell this option is still valid - anybody disagree?

Well thank you. I was unaware of that cite. I bet you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

How is 1/2 not part of the other? It seems to me that an argument can be made that only if the second half is deferred does either 1/2 qualify for rollover treatment. Say you have a plan that provides a life annuity plus a one time payment of $10,000 as an option. I don't see how this would qualify for rollover treatment either.

Well, Andy, I have only the online version and I don't see any similarly numbered Q&A and nothing yet that supports a rollover yet. In fact, I read one Q&A that implies NO within the context of installment followed by a subsequent lump sum not being rolloverable which has some similarities I think. What is the title of the Q&A? Blinky, how is this not part of a series of payments expected to exceed 10 years in duration and therefore not qualifiant? Where are you getting the separation from?

Thanks. I take it that you think the rollover option is available for N under the "bifurcation theory of Big Sky townies"?

Thanks Effen. Yes, this is in reference to a 60%-80% restricted plan. I found some discussion of this after I posted, so I understand your comments generally and they make sense, but a couple of things if I may: 1. You seem to imply that 1/2 a lump sum and 1/2 an annuity must be offered. I don't see why that would be required. Why couldn't you offer either/or and simply restrict 1/2 the lump sum in practice similar to the 120% lump sum restriction under prior law? 2. What about the rollover question? I think that is a big one if it does not qualify for rollover treatment.

Are companies offering these combinations? Is future guidance expected? Does the 1/2 qualify for rollover treatment? How are you handling this for restricted plans?

This concept (compliant NRA, subsidized ERA) was the subject of a Gray Book Q&A this year and the answer was supportive of this approach because the basic intent is to prevent in-service distributions at bogus NRAs. (As Tom Finnegan stated here a year or two ago).

Thanks for the comments. I know this question has come up in conferences, but I don't remember any clear answer.

There are no conditions on an accrual - everybody gets the allocation formula multiplied by their compensation through the freeze date. The freeze notice says nothing about how to define comp; there is no attempt to do anything one way or another - just to administer it properly. The freeze language merely says, "“Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section ....., a Participant’s Accrued Benefit shall not be increased after February 27, 2009.” and “Effective February 27, 2009, no additional Eligible Employees (other than those Eligible Employees who are Participants in the Plan on February 27, 2009) are eligible to become Participants in the Plan.” and the document defines compensation as: 1.11 "Compensation" with respect to any Participant means such Participant's wages as defined in Code Section 3401(a) and all other payments of compensation by the Employer (in the course of the Employer's trade or business) for a Plan Year for which the Employer is required to furnish the Participant a written statement under Code Sections 6041(d), 6051(a)(3) and 6052. Compensation must be determined without regard to any rules under Code Section 3401(a) that limit the remuneration included in wages based on the nature or location of the employment or the services performed (such as the exception for agricultural labor in Code Section 3401(a)(2)). Compensation for any Self-Employed Individual shall be equal to such individual's Earned Income. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if compensation for any prior determination period is taken into account in determining a Participant's benefits for the current Plan Year, Compensation means compensation determined pursuant to the terms of the Plan then in effect. I see nothing addressing how to fit that definition into two months.

Andy, our version is not stand-alone. It extracts data from 2008 Schedule H and Schedule B, and asks for the location of the 2007 and 2006 Schedule Bs for import. BTW, it uses the 2007 data for both 2007 and 2006 - clearly a bug that I intend to report. Anybody found other significant bugs? I found a few weird happenings but no apparent pattern to them - the fonts would not change for language pasted in, and an auto replacement of apostrophes with question marks - both related to importing investment strategy language. Overall, it present a huge time savings anyway.

Now watch Donkey Kong add his stupid picture to the gallery.

Calendar year Cash balance with no allocation requirements is frozen 2/28/2009. Is there any answer to how the partners compensation for CB allocation purposes should be determined? Is it a. $0 b. 2/12 of what the year end numbers turn out to be 3. Something else? Thanks for any help.

Educate thyself c/o Wikipedia Donkey Kong was created by game designer Shigeru Miyamoto, along with two other characters............. The three characters were supposed to mirror the love triangle that exists in the Popeye comics. Donkey Kong was cast as the antagonist, with the creator explaining that a gorilla is not "too evil or repulsive". Shigeru believed "donkey" meant "stupid" in English, and assumed the name Donkey Kong would convey the sense "stupid ape" to an American audience

FWIW, I second the comments of both the Bird and the Fish, not that either should be a surprise. Now if we had the Benefit of Mr. Kite's view and perhaps Donkey Kong could chime in.............. And IMHO Laura's instincts are right.

A-Rod could pay 100 of those every day, 50 after taxes. Think about that for a minute.

Thanks for the feedback. That is much quicker than I'm seeing. But of course enconomics classes taught us that the marginal cost of the first widget can't be the price.

How are people doing them? Manually? How long are they taking? Relus' isn't ready nor are they committing to when they will be. We're proceeding manually at this point. Slooowly.

Thank you. Some of this is very helpful. Some adds more questions to the pile.

Thanks. Reluctantly agree.

Bravo. But you forgot new quarterly contributions and Forms 10 for 2 life plans.

Thanks for the comments. Here is a simple example. Calendar Year Plan effective in 2007 has required contribution of $100,000 for 2007 and funds it late, in December of 2008. Now we're doing a 2008 valuation. Assume the TNC is $150,000 and the Target Liability is $110,000 (basically the first year accrual plus interest). I think it is clear that the amount due for 2008 equals the 2007 deficiency increased with interest to the deposit date plus the 2008 TNC plus the 2008 shortfall amortization. I think you are saying that the shortfall amortization is the amortization of $110,000 over 7 years, so that my 2008 contributon becomes: 1. The original $100K plus interest 2. Amortization of $110,000 over 7 years. 3. The TNC. Note that 2 is essentally double counting the deficiency (plus one year of interest), isn't it? I think you are right, that nothing says otherwise, but this doesn't make much sense to me. I think this approach would also increase the quarterly due for 2008 and 2009 and that seems counterintuitive to me also.

Calendar year plan has a funding deficiency in 2007, corrected in December 2008. How is the funding shortall calculated as of 1/1/2008, by including the amount due for 2007 or not? Similar questions about how to calculate the quarterly for 2008 and 2009 - based on target nc + amort for 2008 including deficient receivable? The proposed reg seems to say that the deficiency is not part of the quarterly computation for the next year, but the question remains as to how the unpaid amount is handled for purposes of the determination of shortfall. Opinions please. Thanks.

Thank you.