AndyH

Wow, thanks Lori. Good thing I didn't tell you I converted to a Yankee fan. Seriously, very kind.

Where's Blinky? Now we know who Moe Howard 2 or Hoard2 or whoever those dastardly villains with antisocial personalities really are. And, geez, to think I was only responding to Effen's comments. Lighten up Moe.

Effen, point well taken. But it was only a few years ago that the then-Red Sox ownership tried to tell Sox fans that they were only a small to mid market team. Then again, this was the same ownership with a GM who constantly spouted that the Red Sox had been in first place more of the season then the Yankees. If you hear similar stuff about the Mets, it's all in the same Duquette family.

We should mention that there are at least 4 (probably more) Board regulars who are authors or significant contributors to the Answer Book Series. They deserve recognition: Carol Calhoun Gary Lesser Tom Poje vebaguru-sorry I don't recall your real name Others that I've missed, please raise your hands.

ERISA1, I don't understand your comments about age discrimination and the gateway. You stated that 25 year olds get more than 21 year olds and imply this is a pattern through which older employees get less of an allocation. Kindly explain what you mean. Thanks.

OK, my turn. The ASPA exams require BOTH. Both are very good. Both are very necessary IMHO. Sorry Lori but I hate the online edition of BOTH, which I have. I have great trouble reading either. That of course depends upon your monitor and your eyes. But I read essentially both front to back perhaps 1.5 times each when I took the exams and I would be doing a Stevie Wonder tribute for a living if I did that using the online versions. Mr. Jones, since they both become dated I recommend that you purchase the one that is required reading for whichever exam you are taking. If both are recommended, get both. The online versions are probably fine for occassional use but not exam studying IMHO. Effen's comments are right on. They called me and called me and called me for years until somehow I got them to stop. And the books were never in my name. They must buy ASPA's mailing list since I still get lots of mail solicitations.

merlin, I had the same reaction to #2, but I think I agree that the language is not quite right. I'm not sure that #1 is not a problem unless the plan is underfunded.

If that sounds a bit fishy, then ....... but it is wise and accurate.

Do others read it the same way? Testing a DB/DC combo on a contributions basis avoids the gateway? Obviously this does not usually work, but outside the context of a closely held business it might, or at least the 11-(g) fix might be cheaper.

Intuitively I agree with you; the value of the benefit did not increase, but the amount of the monthly entitlement, the check, did increase. Neither the reg or the code say anything about actuarial value of the accrued benefit; just the accrued benefit itself. But I do appreciate the opinion. (Took a sentence out that made little sense upon re-reading).

Part time employee hits NRA but does not accrue because hours are below 1000 needed and average comp does not increase. Plan proides that late retirement calculation is greater of formula benefit or actuarial equivalent of prior year's accrued benefit. The participant's accrued benefit increases on account of the actuarial increase for late retirement. Is this benefitting under 410(b)? Reg 1.410(b)-(3) does not seem to have anything that says no, but logically one might think the answer should be no. Opinions?

I'll agree to hibernate as long as the nice aquatic creatures and assorted mammals and sales people play nice. But it won't be as much fun.

Good question, as is mine, which is as yet unanswered.

Dom or Carol, do the policies cover top heavy benefits? And, BTW, Carol's comments are always sensible and civil. No surprise there.

Now, that is out of the box thinking. Might work in some situations. I'll mull that over, thanks. I must be twisted as well, as I kind of wondered about that also but wasn't sure that it avoided the gateway. But it looks like you are right.

Controlled group of many companies, one of which has a DB that must be general tested. Other related companies have DC plans with nonelective contributions. The DB plan does not pass coverage (or more to the point the NCT part of the general test), so it is aggregated with one of the DC plans that has nonelective contributions of about 3%. The DB plan has HCEs that accrue more than 35% of pay, which means that the DB/DC gateway would be 7.50%. Assume that 100 NHCEs benefit in the the DB plan but that plan needs 125 more NHCEs to pass the NCT part of the general test (and 410(b) as well). One option would be to aggregate a DC plan with a nonelective contribution and make sure that all NHCEs get or average an accrual of 7.50%. That would be very expensive. Question: Instead of providing all NHCEs with the 7.50% gateway, could I do an 11-(g) amendment and provide 26 NHCEs in one of the other companies with a DB accrual for the year? This would make the DB/DC combo have 126 NHCEs with DB benefits and 125 with DC accruals, making the combo primarily DB in nature which avoids the gateway. Is there anything prohibiting this?

Great dating tips-for actuaries-don't miss those: 1. When is it appropriate to invite your mother? 2. Which pocket protector goes best with your outfit? 3. Learning to leave your calculator at home. 4. Don't tell your date what her expected lifetime is 5. What to order if peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are not on the menu 6. Don't try to calculate the probability of a second date (i.e., it's "assumed" to be 0.0%)

Is there any type of 5% or 7.50% gateway requirement when general testing a CB plan by itself, i.e. not in conjunction with a DC plan?

I think you are right, but keep in mind that the plan can be tested under the general test in lieu of a 414(s) test. And under certain conditions the general test can be done every three years only. The integration can be done under either plan. I'm not sure if you could split the disparity limits 50%/50% among DC and DB plans. You probably could. If Blinky agrees you can impress your client by quoting both quint the shark hunter and Blinky the 3-Eyed Fish. TAG would certainly be impressed.

THess, would you mind sharing your conclusion?

right. Tom's point is exactly correct. Such document language would not have been approved, which is why it is a wonder that we all must guess what the document actually says.

How about TAG? After all, they have real names associated with their answers, unlike for example, "Blinky the 3-Eyed Fish" said so. Honest. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27773

THess, PIP is exactly right. Lots of knowledgeable people have tried to help you, but your comments are full of attitude and make little sense, IMHO. What is this secret "mechanism" that the document has for class 1 allocations that might create a 411(d)(6) violation? If you want an answer, you should present facts.

RM, if you can't do 10% of $300 without a calculator, then I feel much better about my non-calculator skills.

QDROphile, Would that make you a telepath, Lori's official editor, or just an alternate personality?