AndyH

I would have several concerns about doing what is being floated. Testing Age is Normal Retirement Age if NRA is uniform; otherwise it is age 65. At least one (recently struggling Notice writer) IRS rep has stated that the IRS reserves the right to interpret NRA as something other than what is in the plan document. That's where I thought you were going. So if the proposed NRA is viewed as invalid, testing age would revert to 65. Second, while the 5 year service requirement would appear on the surface not to cause non-uniformity, if it were considered non-uniform then testing age would again be 65. Presumably such a plan would be a new plan because few one-lifers have cross tested plans. I would question whether the 5 year requirement would satisfy the BRF requirements for a qualified plan based upon facts and circumstances. Just one opinion, nothing more.

Those might be some funky EBARs. I agree with WDIK's point, that testing age might not necessarily follow a plan document's NRD in extreme cases, but then again, WDIK?

Agreed, but I think Carol's point about 415 is also correct.

Well done, B., but they left me and my colleagues off the list. Sincerely, Dice K's full time translator

Got it. Yeah, the $1 million threshold seems to set off a different level of activity with Form 200 and the lien stuff. Mine was under, thankfully.

Did the PBGC assess penalties for late reportable event filings? In my case, before the revisions, we identified numerous unfiled reportable events, and filed all of them without incurring any penalties. The PBGC did assess some $25,000 or so in penalties (they waived about 40%) for failure to file PBGC Form 1 for several years (and pay premiums). But that was after some hefty premiums were paid. Did I mention the actuary apparently thought Form 1 filing requirements ended upon plan freeze? When we amend the filings we will create more of these technical reportable event issues.

You weren't on the recent EA Washington attendee list. He was (to my amazement). I guess it's never too late to start learnin.

Yes, that is on the agenda. Client wants nobody else to have to go through this. Effen was kind enough to help me last year get a list of cases this guy signed. Very short list, thankfully.

The first problem is that current liability was computed using 83 Blended for several years and the population is heavily female. And the plan is underfunded and well over 150 participants so 412(l), quarterlies, notices, etc. are impacted. And that was just the tip of the iceberg. But it was a glaring, undisclosed deviation that was confirmed by the prior actuary. This is just one area where cleanup was needed. All the other major areas (FAS, PBGC) were similarly or more problematic.

I don't think we should file Form 5330 until the deficiency is about to be corrected, otherwise we'll be faced with one of those "100% penalty unless paid within 30 days" letters. Actually, 4 of them. There is a substantial cash flow issue. The money tree ain't growing fast enough. This is a frozen plan-none of this was expected. There are substantial dollars involved. To be clear, this is essentially a self correction; a deficiency will not exist until we amend the Schedule B's. That will be done at the same time. Otherwise, I would agree that the 5330 should be filed right away. I'd rather pay a little interest than risk a 100% penalty assessment. We're aware of the issues surrounding methods and assumptions and amending B's. The corrections are to fix statutory requirements that were not met.

Thanks for the comments. It sounds like your situation you had a real person to talk to, maybe in the context of an audit? In this case we have a mailing address for 5330; not a person to discuss it with.

Takeover plan has a series of funding deficiencies being reported and corrected in 2007. Deficiencies being newly reported-prior errant Schedule B's being amended. The 5330s will be filed in 2007 for 4 years-the deficiency will be corrected by 9/15/07. We're expecting upon filing of 5330s that interest and penalties will be automatically be assessed (beyond the intiial 10%). Any suggestions for proactive action in anticipation of this? I don't think that the initial 10% can be avoided but what about interest and further non-filing penalties? Unique situation (I hope). Regular board members may remember prior discussion of this situation. The cleanup is now in it's final stages. Thanks for any suggestions.

lerie could tell you, but then he/she'd have to shoot you.

Off the top of my head, I believe that the rule is that a 403(b) plan cannot be used to help a 401(a) plan pass coverage or nondiscrimination (or it could be the reverse, but there is a prohibition against such aggregation). So I'm pretty certain that would be a no. I would do some research to confirm but I think that is accurate. I don't know if the proposed 403(b) regs address this or not but that is a place to look.

5% unless the mystery situation would justify 3%.

Anybody out there "in the know" about when we might expect any information on the new rates for 2008? I am interested in particular about the relative increase in the 417(e) rate once phased in, and how that might compare to both the Treasury rate and the segmented yield curve rates. But I guess everybody else is also.

1. Today, if the dc employer contribution is $0.01. Maybe a different answer some day. 2. Yes.

Should I delete this rant also? If felt good.

Notice 2007-29 will say that the subliminal intent of the IRC is that if there has been any consideration of adopting a DC plan in the past 48 months or if any HCE has sneezed within the last 2.99 years then the 150% goes away. :angry:

Could you clarify that please. Clearly you don't have to wait for the contribution to be funded. The question is whether the 1040 must be extended so that it is not due before the deposit is made. My assumption is that an extension would be required, but I have never gotten a definitive answer to this question. Also, I think the initial 1040 extension is to 8/15, not 9/15 so that is another potential trap.

You can have the salary but I'll take your exclusive negotiating rights fee.

Is this Notice going to be amplified, clarified, or retracted as it should IMHO?

Belgarath, I threw your curveball to the client's CPA and he thinks you are Dice-K. Yes, he agrees (after some research) that there are adverse income tax ramifications under the Belgarath Doctrine sufficient to discourage the proposed transaction. Of course he does not wish to explain them but he agrees with your comments. Thank you. Any willing elaborators out there are welcome to explain further.

Good advice. Thank you.

Thanks WDIK That led me to PTE 92-6, but it seems to allow such a sale if the purchaser is a relative who is a beneficiary under the contract. In my case, the son wants to purchase it but he is not a beneficiary (his mother is). Changing that could be messy and something I would rather avoid. I think this needs to be a two step transaction, purchase by participant or spouse and then sale to son with a change in beneficiary at that time. Anybody disagree?