AndyH

I'm pretty sure that it was stated at a recent conference that a 2007 plan termination paid in 2008 would be based upon 2007 law.

Has anyone thought up any ingenious ways of getting the 1/1/2008 funded status of all their DB plans "certified" by April 1, 2008? Consider the regulatory ambiguities, software issues, learning curves, etc., as well as the data collection issues during FAS and 1099 season.

Thanks for the replies. Here's a definition of current and noncurrent assets from investorwords.com Current Asset: A balance sheet item which equals the sum of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, inventory, marketable securities, prepaid expenses, and other assets that could be converted to cash in less than one year. A company's creditors will often be interested in how much that company has in current assets, since these assets can be easily liquidated in case the company goes bankrupt. In addition, current assets are important to most companies as a source of funds for day-to-day operations. Noncurrent Asset: An asset which is not easily convertible to cash or not expected to become cash within the next year. Examples include fixed assets, leasehold improvements, and intangible assets. opposite of current asset. I'd be interested in any further explanations as to how these differ on financial statements.

If Stray-Rod ends up in Boston next year, many of us will agree with you and be emigrants from Red Sox Nation.

Thank you Becky; that is very helpful. It does confirm my worst fears, however. I do find the changes outrageous within the context of a 5500 limited scope audit. Those of us who work on DB plans have noticed a strong trend line here with the accounting community and retirement plans. "Controversial" is well put.

Famous? How about our colleague quint the shark hunter?

Thanks for the comments and the link. A major difference between the two situations is that my current situation involves close to 200 actives so 401(a)(26) will not be a problem for a while. Contrast this with 32 actives where the 50 employee rule is unavailable. With 200 people and also a 401(k) plan that I can cross test, I am confident of passing the Average Benefit Test for quite some time, if it is available. It all comes down to the reasonable classification question. I've always wondered how the IRS would view this within the context of a soft freeze or also in the case of "employee choice" elections, which I have never advocated. There must be rulings out there.

Maybe my question was unclear, but I am asking a specific technical question about coverage testing.

And Stray-Rod in the News. Couldn't happen to a nicer Yankee.

A DB plan is amended to close participation to employees who would enter or of after Date X. Is anyone aware of/had a ruling on the IRS' view of whether the benefiting group in the plan would constitute a reasonable classification of employees for purposes of the NCT portion of the Average Benefit Test? Or must such a group pass the ratio/percentage test?

Why wouldn't you simply reduce the "New Comp" allocation by $1,000 and treat that as a 2007 prepayment?

No takers?

Why would there be an issue with employee taxes? Mandatory contributions are not pre-tax except within a governmental or quasi governmental plan. I wish they were.

Blinky has Mr. Holland's ear. Hey Blinky, how about calling him and asking him if the Benefitslink rumor is true that he "

The SHNEC has multiple magical powers. Thus the phrase "Holy SHNEC Batman!". Robin was, I've heard, a cross tester.

I'm passing along this question and unfortunately I don't have the exact terminology in front of me. If a plan has an excess of PBO to Assets the shorftall is a balance sheet debt, right? If a plan has an excess of Assets to PBO is that a balance sheet asset? Or does the term "non-current asset" apply and make the answer no?

I don't see how it can be required if the transferees are no longer subject to the CBA. Or are they? That is one question. If non-CBA-covered transferees choose to no longer contribute I doubt the employer can fire them (geez, talk about at-will employment). Just stop their pension accrual. Right? I don't see why a plan couldn't do that if there are no HCEs. What a nightmare administratively and PR-wise, though.

Merlin, if you want to search, there are several old threads on this subject. I don't recall any providing a different answer, however.

Merlin, my impression is that companies that do this correctly, meeting all the requirements at reasonable cost are about as common as 3-eyed fishes. If you find one, you should set up a referral service-I'd send them clients right away. I have never seen (or even heard of) one that I thought met the requirements, although I have seen a couple that did not.

Quite clear there. Thanks and my apologies to Carol. I stand corrected, at least effective 1/1/2008.

mjb, I do understand that you have background in this area and I respect you knowledge but I am not as yet convinced. I understand the 50% control on the private plan. But I am referencing employer contributions to a 403(b) sponsored by an employer that the doctor does not control. How are those deemed to be controlled by the employee? I understand that a non-ERISA 403(b) is deemed controlled by the employee, but employer contributions create ERISA coverage and employer control, no? Can you provide a cite?

Carol, I don't agree with your 403(b) aggregation comment. Employee deferrals are aggregated, but not because of any type of business aggregation, but instead because deferrals are limited at the individual taxpayer level, by 402(g), regardless of where they are contributed. Employer contributions to a private doctor 403(b) or 401(a) plan and employer contributions by a Hospital to a doctor under a hospital 403(b) plan are not aggregated unless the doctor "controls" the Hospital. But that is all the more reason why your answer to Doug's question is almost certainly correct and for the reason you state.

This is one of the things the IRS is targetting, for good reason IMHO. This plan has a target on it's back.

That explains why I was looking at one. They were soliciting bids for actuarial and "compliance" services. Now I understand better why. I guess these experts must get some $$$ for compliance services of their 1953 designs. How about an 1853 design? Were there any 1853 revenue rulings to rely on? (thinking about that brings back memories of Charlton Heston and talking Orangutans).

That is just Brutal, Brutus!