AndyH

What in the world would lead v everett to post this topic in this place? Is this an employee benefit issue? Does it have to do with the Red Sox?

It is a 411 issue. The NRA you cite must be the date that full unreduced benefits are payable, that distributions are available if separation from service has ocurred, and that benefits are fully vested. I don't know the specific cite off hand but I'm nearly 100% certain it either the code or regs in 411.

Right; I'm just wondering if violates any requirement; I'm not aware that it does but I would look at that before assuming it is ok.

This doesn't answer the question of whether or not the safe harbor requirements are satisfied for 2004, it seems to me, since the contribution is being designated for 2005 at least for deduction purposes.

Thanks, I was curious because I have a client who was on the brink of a similar situation and was exploring all the what-if's but did not qualify for distress, kind of an in-betweener.

Thanks. Maybe we're back to the question as to whether a benefit in excess of 415 can be accrued.

And to state the obvious, a comment by one IRS reviewer does not necessarily represent the official position of the IRS.

RTK, would you be willing to provide an example of a situation that might fit this description? Or is it the same thing by a different description? And, Mike, I haven't heard of what you described, but I would second PIP's comments about an increase in non-DB-experienced reviewers auditing db plans. But then again, it sounds like something brewing on the left coast where everything originates.

Obviously I intended to submit a poll as evidence and pass the hat.

Wouldn't that blow out the window of your convertible or boat out there in Paradise?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30324

Well, thats what makes horse racing.

I second Belgarath's comments, in particular the one about sleep - I forgot about that; that was brutal. I'm enjoying telling clients that their investment returns stink because of the Yankees. Passing along those salaries to corporate ticket buyers and tv advertisers drains corporate profits so stocks depreciate. And others follow suit. It's that simple. Underfunded plan? Clearly the Yankees are to blame, A-Rod in particular. Blame all underfunded plans on A-Rod.

Agreed. There are wrong opinions Kidding aside, doesn't it depend first on what the definition of frozen is. Second is the issue of whether a benefit in excess of 415 can be accrued-I agree there are different opinions on that one but I know that Jim Holland's is no and that is good enough for me.

I'm not following what you mean by 30x or 50x but my opinion is that if the plan is frozen, then the accrued benefit does not increase in the future regarless of 415 indexing unless there is a bonafide COLA that applies to retirees. If it does, then I think you have something other than a frozen plan and that such person would be benefiting for a(4), 410(b), and 401(a)(26) purposes; therefore you have testing issues.

Thank you. If we are right, then what I am looking at (done by an actuary with another firm with 35 years of experience) is wrong. Any dissenting opinions?

Looking over some proposed calculations. Fairly basic questions If someone has an accrued benefit that would exceed the 415 limit at age 70 1/2 but is reduced to the 415 limit receives minimum distributiions, is the maximum benefit at age 71 the age 71 415 dollar limit, or that limit less the pv of minimum distributions? Same question 71 to 72 for example, Doesn't the 415 dollar limit need to relect prior minimums? Thanks for any help.

Not that you need another voice but the plan did not terminate. Period. IMHO.

Hello gang. Now that baseball season is over (for some of us). have a couple of extra minutes to spare myself the agony of watching the Yankees come back again. Couple of comments- 1. It's a honor to be called a friend by Lori, even if she left out the ski area stuff. 2. I have read a number of Denise's articles, and her knowledge and writing ability are extremely impressive IMHO. 3. jevd - have always enjoyed your comments but what the (heck?) is that picture/work of art? 4. Why does Blinky never enter "Life Beyond Employee Benefits"? 5. There are too many people left out from getting kudos, but Erik Read's comments are also always interesting as well. 6. Lori, no follwup to Lame Duck?

Assuming the plan document is silent, I think you can do anything reasonable that resolves the doubt in favor of the employee, for example: 1. Ignore the break for purposes of average comp. 2. Treat him as two people and add the accrued benefits together. I'd probably do #1. What you cannot do is adopt a procedure which reduces the accrued benefit.

Green "Death" in my world Steve. I win:

Let's see, awards time: stephen hits a two run homer over everything (but why don't those stories mention me?) Lori earns an A for remembering "Green Death" but drops a couple of pegs by putting the awesome gansett tast down-actually I'm not kidding-it was good. Tom wins a free jump in the 6' x 8' Express swimming pool followed by a continental breakfast with a bloody mary and decaf coffee. WDIK definitely wins archivist of the year-awesome collection-and you even caught the "deemed safe habor" discussion! mutliple people tie for crossdresser of the year but the MVP is reserved for he/she/it that can connect the dots with a picture of me sluggin down a "Gansett" in one gulp then crunching the can just before I got eaten in Jaws. I cannot find such a picture although there are dozens of text references to it on the net.

Oh, and Tom, you've never had a twelve pack of 'Gansett? Lori will remember, "Hi Neighbor, have a Gansett"!

maverick makes my buddy list. Forgot about candygram! Hilarious! (Most of the rest of you are already on it so my harpoon would never go your direction). Don, a question for you. Who pays for all that demand-stimulating pharmaceutical advertising? Watch the nightly news and you feel like you're about to have 3 heart attacks yet have ADD and need viagra. And experience all those wonderful side effects all at the same time! Don't you think that is indicative of a major problem all by itself? I don't want my tax dollars paying for those commercials! Do you? I've always felt that there should be national catastrophic health insurance, not national advertising-induced prescription welfare that benefits the mega companies alone.

Oh, and my inspiration is quinn the car fixer. Don, what "mess" do you refer to?