AndyH

I was wondering whether the construction on your websites would be fiinished before I heard back.

and the answer is ....... 4 business days (with an apology and explanation)

Mike, it seems we agree on the separate plan, no consistency issue. I am unaware of any contrary opinions. Am I imagining it, or hasn't your thinking on issue #2 (merlin's question) come full circle? Tom, you are Darth. Not Elvis and not Quint and not Zeus. Kudo's and Congrats. Well done. You do need to post images at some point.

Hey Zeús, how about the original question?

yeah, 415(e)

30 hours and counting.

Thanks for the comments. We're aware of much of this and were represented at the EA conference so we'll make use of that information. Cynical me has one more comment though. What is the under/over on a return of a phone call from the phone # above? Over is looking good.

Right; otherwise he'd just have to wait 1 year after he terminated.

Wo, a warm welcome back to Merlin. Been hibernating like the Blinkster? Is that like "sleeping with the fishes"? I think the consensus is that there is only one test. Somewhere on one of these boards EF Hutton expressed that one-test opinion adamantly and if I recall correctly added "even the IRS now agrees to that". But there still may be differing opinions. Back to the original question, the a(4)/410(b) regs say that the testing group must be the same between nondisdrim and coverage. And elsewhere it says that ADP and ACP are the exclusive nondiscrim tests for K and M, so logic might apply the consistency principal to 410(b) and ADP and 410(b) and ACP while not requiring any coordination between the separate dissagregated plans. But, I agree with Tom that we could use this in print. How bout the next edition? The book could even quote "an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas (moderated by a yellow blinking 3 eyed fish?) speaking at an ASPA session opined that ........." Conclusive!

Geez, B. Gotta get you out of the office! He's a good torturing cross examiner when nobody's lookin. Could be related to Julian Tavares. Mondays 9:00 pm. Try Google.

Jack Bauer would agree.

The paper I read it in's online version is down right now, but Google KPMG guilty plea and you will find it in many places such as: http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&oi=news&sta...3645903&e=50319 This article is much shorter and less in depth than the one I read but it is the same subject. p.s. Here is a better article: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...efer=news_index

A complaint can come later if appropriate and desired by the client. At this point fact gathering is appropriate and current standing is a relevant fact to be gathered under these particular circumstances.

Ditto Will add due respect to HarryO, and I do mean that, the confession that I read in the newspaper yesterday from a former KPMG executive seemed awful thorough and damning. It left no impression of ambiguity or room for interpretation whatsoever.

That is my understanding. Tom et al feel free to chime in. Not Blinky though; he is still hibernating.

I think your second sentence is incorrect. I think your consistency requirement is between the discrimination and coverage testing of each plan, of which you have three.

Perfect, thank you.

Do a Google search for 204(h) Notice and you will find several. BTW, a freeze is 45 or 15 days depending on plan size, not 60. Sixty would be notice of intent to terminate, a different animal entirely.

Thanks, Effen, but not everybody is on that directory. I know many (non-SOA EA's) that are not (at least a couple of regulars to this Board included). p.s. There is no Effen listed either!

Brutally messed up takeover plan. "Less than competent" actuary that nobody has ever heard of. Refuses so far to acknowledge requests for correction of blatant Schedule B errors. Insists that it is ok to compute current liability using sex neutral tables (plan is 95% female to top it off). On and on and on. Has not signed anything recently with his enrollment number on it. Hmmm. Is there a fairly quick way of confirming (current and past) enrollment?

I don't think quoting me will help anything at this point. Steve, if the plan was established prior to the 5/31/2005 effective date, then I don't see why you could not ignore this issue until the regs are finalized and fund assuming that the the pre-participation comp level is ok for 415 purposes. But if the plan was established and effective after that date then I would think you would need two projections, one of the benefit using all comp and the other of the 415 limit using only post participation comp, and fund for the lesser of course. Just one opinion.

For those that don't remember, a little research c/o Wikipedia: "Radner's character peered through her bifocals and read a prepared letter addressing some public issue, becoming increasingly agitated as her statement progressed, only to discover in the middle of her report that she had gotten the theme of her story wrong. A typical example: "What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a "deaf" penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is! When the on-air reporter interrupted to point out her error (death vs. deaf), she would crinkle her nose, usually say, "Oh, that's quite different...", and then humbly say to the audience, "Never mind!" Other misunderstood topics included Soviet Jewelry, Endangered Feces, Making Puerto Rico a Steak, Presidential Erections, Pouring Money into Canker Research, the Eagle Rights Amendment, Busting School Children, Natural Racehorses, and Sax and Violins on Television. Emily's answering machine message said: "Hello, This is Emily Litella. I'm not home right now, but I will call you back as soon as possible. Just leave your name, number and what time you called after you hear the sound of the Jeep."

Where is Donkey Kong? No longer enforcing humbleness?

Well, in the words of the immortal Emily Litella, "Never Mind". In re-reading the proposed regs, I was taking the May date for something other than what it was intended. Sorry for any confusion caused by Emily or me.

Was the plan adopted and effective before or after 5/31/05? If before, then the proposed regs would grandfather pre-participation comp as ok for 415. If after, you have a judgement, then an assumption to make.