AndyH

Well, I found the answer to my specific question with some help from D.C., but it does not directly address the status of 2000-40. PPA defaults the val date to the BOY (430)(g)(2)(A). A small plan can elect something else but the default is still BOY. So we can run a 12/31/2007 val for a new plan and turn around and use that data for a 1/1/2008 val and AFTAP.

What's the "standard Rev. Rul. 80-229 language for excess assets" for those of us with short memories and little time?

Does anyone know an IRS phone number that I confirm this by calling? My opinion is now the minority in my office. Proving a negative is not easy.

Hall of Fame candidate?? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23084

I also heard this, but I would characterize the comment as a bit stronger- as a warning.

No, I share your view; I have a colleague who is not so sure that PPA did not somehow nullify it.

Did PPA in some way invalidate this procedure? My specific question is whether a new 2007 DB plan that has a 12/31/2007 val date can change to BOY 1/1/2008 and be subject to automatic approval under 2000-40. Any help would be appeciated.

Thank you.

What is the AFTAP for a new plan in 2007 with no past service liability and a beginning of year val date? 100%? 0%, None of the above? Is it true that there is no presumption for 2008 available, meaning that a 2007 val and a 2008 AFTAP must be completed by 4/1/08 to avoid the restrictions?

Look like Mr. Holland agrees with Mike. See Merlin's comments and quoted Q&A. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...&hl=Holland

Not having seen many CB plans other than through some seminars, webcasts, etc. I don't have a good feel for design limits if they exist. Years ago Sal Tripodi wrote a guidebook on cross tested DC design which I found to be invaluable back then. I'd love to see something similar on CB plan design. We thought Corbel's checklist would be a useful guide to basic design. It is limited to percent of pay per group or dollar amount per group. I understand it can be modified but I'd like to get some sense of if any boundaries exist. I know there are ADEA issues for example, and I would not use groups that reference age in any way. I wonder about 401(a)(26), CODA issues, individual groups, etc. Maybe they are non-issues; I don't know for sure. I would not want to put in 50 of these this year to find out that the IRS has an issue with a particular design issue once the FDL's application responses start arriving. What about defining allocation groups based upon service; any issues there? How about an allocation rate of x% of pay but not more than $y. Any problem with that? Why isn't it an option on Corbel's checklist? Are one person allocation groups a problem? How about 0% groups (other than the issues applicable to dc plans as well and the obvious 401(a)(26) issues)? I get the sense that the IRS will address this stuff sooner rather than later before the abuse starts. But where are the lines in the interim?

Good points (The Burrows/Preston rule is in effect) Another thing: Why doesn't Doc give himself a raise? (if you don't mind throwing a few bucks into the Lock Box) Otherwise, that's the best technique.

Agreed; it must be an average benefits test issue. Both of the original NHCEs should be in the doc's rate group, but not Nurse Ratchid, so the R/P would be only 66.66%, not 70%.

There was a-CCA sponsored Webcast a week or two ago and the IRS people seemed to be pretty strongly advising against a fixed rate. Plus, under the recent guidance decreasing or even changing the rate seems to be problematic, so I would prefer to "get it right" from plan inception; but there seems to be no acceptable choice at present Regarding plan design, I am unaware of any present guidance on how allocations or allocation groups are allowed to be designed in a CB plan other than by using a vanilla approach so I'd prefer to have some document guidance from a mainstream provider at this point. Otherwise what is the point of using a Corbel?

Anybody using the Corbel document for new CB plans? I'm wondering how others are dealing with the limitations. Interest crediting, for example, is limited to (a) a fixed interest rate or (b) GATT rates. Unless I am missing something, (a) is not allowed by the IRS at present and (b) really doesn't exist any more. Also, the allocation group options (% or $) seem a bit limited. These are the options from a 1/28/08 version. Anybody else having this experience? Any insights as to their plans and timing?

Don't you find rollover accounts in DB plans to be a hassle? I would advocate against that as well.

Inexact; disorderly;less than fully defined. Hassle. Show me a document that states in detail how comingled assets are to allocate activity such as contributions, distributions, etc. and perhaps my issues would be trivial.

I agree that it is a rarity up here in err, Patriots Nation. I would always advise against it.

Could be merely a relocation or eviction due to a subprime mortgage.

Thanks

How about a match used to satisfy a top heavy minimum? I doubt it, but just thought of that, no doubt stimulated by that brightly colored recently quiet stinky fish.

Dunno about non - PBGC plans but their position on 2007 terminations was confirmed in propaganda dated 12/3/07 titled "Technical Update 07-3". The following curious caviat was included however: "IV. Disclaimer This guidance represents PBGC’s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person or operate to bind the public. If an alternative approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations, you can use that approach. If you want to discuss an alternative approach (you are not required to do so), you may contact the PBGC. "

Ever consider running for President?

But you're only including those who benefit, right? That would make a pretty weird test or two. (Obviously this is not a big issue for a 401(k) plan - but it would be an issue for other types of plans)