AndyH

Well, I've been trollin the waters for more than three touchdowns now lookin fo' predatory fish, be they pariahs or piranna. A favorite hobby of mine is callin out ill-intended purveyors of financially harmful products such as: interest-only mortgages (except to rich people-that's ok) loan sharks er credit agencies high commission life insurance sold to the unknowing annuities of many pursuasions 412(i) programs of most colors, Seems like many purveyors of the latter been swimmin upstream away from the big red coast guard boats with their lights flashin' lately. Some seem to have hit land and converted to interest-only mortgage lenders targetting the naive. Remember the SNL Land Shark skits?

Just give it a SWHT and you're ok. BTW, 20th anniversary of what? And what exactly is that hat?

Two more winners with JFK and DG. Both solid. Edgar already has 75 errors; they keep giving him breaks and not counting them. Last night he dropped a routine chopper right to him, in his glove. Just dropped it, not on an exchange or anything. They ruled it an infield hit. Could this be just Edgar being Edgar, i.e. Mannyitis at shortstop? Looks that way to me. Remdog is saying he hopes Edgar is sick or something so this doesn't last the entire contract. Belgarath, surely nobody will confuse Edgar with Ozzie. He looks more like Ortiz than Ozzie.

Lori, you win with Spike. Forgot him. ...that "I remember seeing play". You don't think I am old enough to have seen Johnny Pesky play, now do you? When did he retire, anyways? Are any on this list as bad as Edgar?

Or, to quote a fellow board member: 1. Nope 2. Yep

Edgar Renteria is by far the worst shortstop that I remember seeing play for the Red Sox. Who have the others been. I recall: Cabrera Nomar John Valentin Rick Burleson Luis Aparicio Rico Petrocelli Jerry Adair? I'm missing a bunch. Without looking them up, who are they?

.....and look for the notices.....

yeah (just a bit more eloquent I'd say). rcline, your comments sound more pertinent to the question of the need to provide full vesting in a partial termination of an underfunded plan.

This does not sound ok to me, by any means. Please explain the facts a bit more. The fact that the company "is no longer in business" does not necessarily equate to "there will be no more contributions". Did the company comply with PBGC reportable event requirements? I don't see how the company owner(s) can abandon this plan and walk away under ordinary conditions. And I don't see how this could be considered a standard termination, anyways. I would think that the distress termination rules apply here. I am no termination expert, so I'd like to hear from others.

Hi Lori: Where did you get this invaluable insider info, the 406 club?

Well, I am mistaken. Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't aware of this rule. p.s. Of course this occurs all the time with different plan and fiscal years so this rates a "duh".

I wonder if the question is being misinterpreted. Nineteen, presuming that both the plan and sponsor are on calendar years, are you saying that the sponsor wants to contribute an amount between 9/16 and 10/15 and deduct it for the prior year even though it cannot be reported on Schedule B because contributions up to 9/15 can be included there? If that is the question, the answer is no, they are not deductible for the prior year and should be reported nowhere. They would have to be contributed on time to be includible on the B. But having said that, I don't think the Sch I needs to agree with the B if the I is done consistently on a cash basis and the B is using the allowable period after the PYE.

You both deserve touche's. But I'm sure glad the Yankees drafted Henson instead of Brady.

No, each rate group must pass coverage, so if they each pass the ratio/percentage test then they do not also need to pass the average benefits test. No, a match or deferral has no impact on the test covering the nonelective portion. They have their own separate testing requirements.

Maybe you guys should take one of our (the Pat's) coaches too. Let's see, no coordinators left; I think the weight room guy is gone; the nutritionist is still here I think.

The Latin word for real value is "Ortiz".

Fair enough viewpoint, stephen. The counterpoint is the dilution of the significance of the membership or credentials.

Both good comments and both sound right. Merlin, just for fun, did the entire contribution become worth $0?, so that somebody took a deduction which disappeared? When does the CSV equal the premiums paid?

I wonder if the "financial advisor" has one of those new ASPPA designations. Anybody else think that is absurd?

That'd be one funny looking general test, all zeros but everybody benefits. Not a lot to do there. I'd call it a day there Merlin. Thank the agent; he got the first year cash values.

I think this comes down to the document and what is in fact being elected but absent that I do not agree that these would qualify for rollover treatment because presumably they are separate elections, with separate series of payments of either equal amounts or payments over a defined period of time which would appear to be more than 10 years.

You mean to tell me that CLU is not an actuarial designation? Bet that brought down the average.

5.25 based upon KPMG comments., 5.50 local auditors.

Thank you very much Mike. Unfortunately, the plan has "matured" so it is in it's last year and the termination deficit should be contributed and deducted in 05 and/or 06. But we aren't sure what to tell the client to contribute because it will depend upon the 415 calculation. And, as you alluded to in your other post, there is also current liability to consider, specifically the unfunded cl deduction limit. I'll need to digest your figures on Turtle's post a bit but that and your comments including the last sentence here are very helpful.

vebaguru, it is the multiple annuity starting date 415 question, which is kind of addressed in the proposed 415 regs that were issued after I asked the question. Since that has been challenged (by ASPA et al I believe) there is probably no answer but if you have an opinion that would be great. Thanks. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...ndpost&p=112847