AndyH

I was wondering what reactions that comment might bring. I think that DB plans should be established at birth, along with whole life insurance policies.

Such a client should not have a DB plan or should be much more educated before establishing such a plan.

How dare you take over one of my brilliantly conceived plans! Bizarre. How would you compute a 415 limit (I know you said you did not have to)? Seems to me you go either val date to val date or use a different rate each month, i.e. acc ben x 1.0473^(1/12) x 1.0455^(1/12), etc. I guess that is what I'd be inclined to do. Where'd the cat drag this one in from?

And/or against the insurance agent who may have filled out the beneficiary information contrary to plan terms. But without more facts, this is all speculation.

I think there are too many details and facts missing. What does the plan say? Most DB plans have life insurance pass through the trust so that the plan admin can control exactly the problem described. How else can you ensure that the QJSA rules are satisfied? More details please, including what the plan's death benefit section says, and more detail about what exactly caused the problem.

Ned, is your lack of color symbolic of you being on the "dark side"? rcline, shirley you are not suggesting amending the plan retroactive to 2004, are ye?

Nope. But you could pass by giving them the same percent allocation as the all others and test part of the group on a contributions basis using a technique called "restructuring". Search for "restructuring" or "component plan" testing if you are interested.

Many 412(i)'s still lookin' good with veba's conditions (they don't meet any of those). rcline, remember, like Bill Clinton's campaign slogan, up on the wall "the deduction, stupid"

Imminent feeding frenzy. Blood in the water. Why not a a 412(i)?

Try this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/401kplans.html

That was my question. Numerous attempts at skimming failed to yield an effective date so far.

Gary, sell this guy a jumbo 412(i) plan with a "wicked awesome deduction" and run away fast. He deserves it.

Right as rain.

As rcline implies, you can probably get where you want to be but not necessarily the way you propose. If the doc says prorata within group, than you do a prorata 3%. Then if you fail gateway, and if you have the necessary language, that language may cause a bump up to 5% for NHCEs. If you don't have language that accomplishes this, then I say no, everyone must get the same percentage within each group.

Midas, what is the cause of the coverage failure, and what money type is failing?

Good comments here, IMHO. This question qualifies as one of the top 50 reasons why we need Mike Preston back. But, Charlie, all they gotta do is pass the flat tax and nobody will have reason to ask or answer any of these questions. And FWIW, my vote is yes, it satisfies the precondition for the ABPT.

And the answer is ? [Reserved until Social Security no longer exists?]

FWIW, I think pax is right but I don't have the cite at my fingertips either.

DB plan provide safe harbor formula of X per year of service is later amended to provide that employees hired after date G instead get a lower benefit, still a safe harbor. Each group has been tested under the ratio/percentage test and determined to pass, so since each passes 410(b) and is a safe harbor, the plan as a whole qualifies for safe harbor treatment. Now the ratio/percentage test does not pass. Can the Average Benefits Test be used to restructure? IMHO the question comes down to whether someone is hired befor or after date G is a reasonable classification within the context of the NCT requirement of the ABT. Opinions?

Unless it is deminimus, i.e. only for a few transfers.

Isn't this a blatant violation of REA, among other things? You can't use a spousal waiver of a J&S for one plan and apply it to another. Or have I read this too fast and missed something. Numerous things appear to be violated, REA among them. I am no cash balance expert by any means, so maybe I'm missing something. If two plans have identical options, then I would imagine the Trustee could be authorized to transfer split benefits into one plan, but absent that how can you avoid separate elections?

sure makes my favorites list.

I'll second both the last two comments and just add that it seems to me that doing end of year sole proprietor DB vals for clients that don't get Determination Letters before distributing assets on termination seems like a difficult line of work.

immediateannuity.com

Each situation necessitates the termination of the DB plan, not the "conversion" or "merger". Neither of the latter are permissable because they would necessitate the maintaince of DB features which would make it a DB plan.