AndyH

If you look at 1.401(a)(4)-4(d)(B)(4) Permissive aggregation ....... I don't see where "comparable" or "deemed equivalent" meet the necessary standards. It looks to me like "impossible" is a tough hurdle.

Boston Advanced Actuarial Conference 6/6/07. But..... I thought it was a direct IRS Q&A but maybe not. My notes from Joan Gucciardi's session said she expressed the view that the vesting schedules should be the same (for BRF testing reasons), and there was discussion of this, with general consensus in agreement. I thought there was a direct Q&A on point but I don't see it. Maybe others in attendance have better memories.

I think you have stated it correctly. The IRS "informally" does not agree.

The Form 10 instructions say that plan under 500 lives that is not subject to a Notice to Participants for both the prior and current years is exempt from a Form 10 filing for a late quarterly. The PBGC Notice cite is Section 4011 of ERISA which I believe is repealed effective 1/1/2007. It therefore appears to me that Form 10 is not required for late quarterlies for 2007 if a plan has less than 500 participants since there is no PBGC Notice requirement for 2007. Agreed?

Jay, if the non profit has ever paid UBTI the IRS treats them like a for-profit for purposes of excise taxes on non deductible contributions and related rules.

I believe this is permitted but participants must be fully vested and benefits must be available at the 411 NRD of not greater than 65+5P. I have one that uses SSRA but it meets the 411 requirements at age 65 and it has received several FDL's over the years.

Quite logical Mr. Spokfish. Live long and prosper.

A further question in my mind is: Does an active participant include someone who is an active participant for 5500 purposes, i.e. including term non vesteds who have not incurred a break in service or a deemed cashout under the terms of the document?

A 412(i), due to it's level premium requirement, is the exact opposite of what this builder needs, which is probably why so many of them were sold. And he probably needs life insurance. Interesting suggestion from Mike if you don't mind doing end of year valuations or some simulated approach.

Me thinks you know the answer. And I'll agree with you.

Those Chinese lawyers are way behind the times. Our death tax is nothing but a user fee for reincarnation - and we've had it for years.

It appears that PPA revoked the "Notice to Participants" such that it is not required in 2007. There seems to be a provision that the DOL would draft a new notice, and at least one reference source said that needed to happen by mid-August 2007. Did it? I'm having trouble finding anything that tell us what the DB participant notice rules are for 2007 other than the SAR. Anybody up on this?

Tom, isn't "a safe harbor plan with 415 increases" a plan that has accrued benefits in excess of 415 before the freeze - and isn't that one of Jim Holland's favorite pet peeves- that such an animal does not exist? Or has his opinion evolved on that subject and I missed it? Either that or we are discussing taking a safe harbor plan and adding benefits only for select (415 victims) people, which obviously (I think) would not fly.

Belgarath, I'm glad your question was apparently answered, but I am puzzled. I agree with ak2ary that 1.410(b)-3 is on point but the interpretation that increasing benefits only for 415 is ok in a general tested frozen plan but not ok in a safe harbor frozen plan is, as Spock would say, highly illogical, since a frozen plan need not be tested under the general test. Further, would this mean that any frozen plan that had anybody at 415 even years ago can be amended to increase benefits only for those that had been at 415, but only if the plan was a safe harbor before being frozen? And such amendment is ok even if it affects one person? It seems to me that this interpretation is too narrow. I can't see how the language in 1.410(b)-3 was intended to be interpreted in that manner. Thoughts?

I certainly don't disagree with the suggestion of checking to see if a reportable event is involved (I don't happen to think it meets the transfer definition). I am also not suggesting that the purchase is a good idea. I'm just answering the question. I think the answer is no.

No.

Thanks for this thread. This is very useful information. I actually have one filing approaching for a client with no computer and no email that I hadn't figured out how to handle. I just love the PBGC - they're just so efficient and trendy. So what if my first two attempts with clients last year took dozens of hours because they hadn't worked out all the kinks. So what if you have a problem with service and call the problem resolution line and get the same person you had a problem with. That's just efficiency. So what if pop up surveys about the website keep interupting use of the website. So what if it takes a couple of more years for them to reply to the technical advice emails I sent they a couple of years back-they're tough questions after all!

I think it could be done as you describe as part of a bonafide COLA provision that applies to all participants. If you just want to increase benefits for people who are at 415, though, I would think this would be a non-frozen, perhaps discriminatory benefit enhancement that would have to be general tested.

Because the DOL has taken that position and many of us choose not to fight "The Man" in this battle. 29 CFR 2509.94-3 - Interpretive bulletin relating to in-kind contributions to employee benefit plans. That is easy to Google.

I'm glad to see that Clint Dylan has joined the boards in the dog days of Summer. Shall we hear from the Governator as well?

dittos to these replies. Merlin, you might have one mad client, but I would not credit it for minimum funding.

Would somebody pullllllleeze post the TAM or provide a number or publication date or something that we can use to find it? I have access to all TAMS through CCH but I still cannot find it.

I don't think anybody is saying that you can't have different rates for different groups of people; we're cautioning that the groups need to be distinct-use job classes or years of service or both for example. I just would not get as aggressive as with cross tested dc plans. Unlike a db, dc plans are not by nature focused on age, so age discrimination concerns are reversed-the younger people get the short stick and that seems to be a lesser evil. It seems to me that the magic to cb plans is that "natural" db cost levels can be cut back for some. And those are the older people. Just one opinion.

Tom, would you agree (I hope so since I got it from your slide show I think) that if the docs have the same job description, age, and service that this (different contribution levels) would not fly under PPA?

My binocular analysis is that the business owner has some issues with his sister.