AndyH

Can you specify the benefit formula? And do you know if the sponsor also has a PS plan that might possibly be aggregated?

I am still skeptical of how the general test could be passed as described. Perhaps there is more to the sponsor's concern than the memo.

It is critical to know what type of sponsor it is, private corporation, non profit, government, church, quasi-government. The rules differ.

Thanks again gentlemen and marine life. That's a Bingo.

I do appreciate the help gentlemen. I don't see this being specifically addressed in 2000-40, but my knowledge is limited in this area. And a couple of my associates are unsure as yet, thus my post. I suspect that the answer as to whether a change from one day to another when both are the FDOPY pre-dates 2000-40.

Couldn't you "convert" it to a plan that is subject to 412 and then fund up to unfunded current liability?

Is it possible to vote someone off the BenefitsBoard Island ala Survivor? Then I could harpoon em.

Yeah, it's the valuation that is behind.

So long as it passes 401(a)(4) that is. How is the general test being satisfied? And do you have a Favorable Determination Letter based upon a submitted general test?

Thanks, Mike. Wishful thinking I suppose.

Plan effective 10/1/2000 and had a short year 10/1/2000-12/31/2000. The valuation date was 10/1/2000. The second plan year was calendar 2001. The valuation date used was 1/1/2001 and the Schedule B reported a change in valuation date/funding method subject to automatic approval under RP 2000-40. Now the plan year has again changed to a 4/1-3/31 year causing a plan year of 4/1/2004-3/31/2005, thus making a valuation date of 4/1 desirable. Is this a change in valuation date/funding method? Do we have to file for approval since the 4 year period has not passed? Note that at no time was a change from a date other than the first day of the plan year used, so no change was made to the first day of a plan year. Help please. Thanks.

katieinny, why don't you describe the design and seek opinions on whether or not the client might haved a valid concern? I would suspect that the design of concern is not vanilla. Or is it?

Jerome, apparently you (and I) will need to start taking massage classes if we want to call ourselves professionals.

I'd like to hear Joel's point.

Ken, you beat me to that one. I remember that clearly like it was yesterday. And they're about to try the same thing all over again. And don't forget this one. Second place?: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23084 greggi39. And the winner is? I can tell you it's not WDIK. FundeK, Entertainment is a large part of the attraction. I've read some saying they like to "stir the pot". Can't imagine who that might be.

I'll offer the following final comments: 1. It is relevant. I was trying to say that I think you can use the unmodified comp for the current year ("Plan Year Comp") or Average comp using one year which could be annualized or not annualized or based upon participation period or not. 2. I think your premise may be incorrect about how the accrued benefit is determined. Isn't this a contradiction? Assuming that he was employed in 2003, since he did not have 3 "completed Years of Participation" isn't his comp averaged over the actual number of months worked including 2003? 3. I was replying to the last paragraph of your second post, which I submit is incorrect. 4. Regarding what is ambiguous, I find the permitted modification language in 1.401(a)(4)-12 to be less than clear.

Nope

Wannabe, do I look or talk like them? And, BTW, do you quote yourself often? ? GB, you do provide quite a bit of entertainment. Too bad you don't stop there. Somebody needs to police you. Was it class of 63? Come on now.

GB, I had to look up the word "snide" and your picture appears under the definition. Class of 1963, right? And the sound byte has that accent of yours-what type is it again? I thought you might enjoy a description of you that I recently received in an email from another board member that you have yet to tangle with ".....that individual is the rudest, most offensive person to use the message board." Thought you'd enjoy that since it is most clearly your objective.

Then what was the point of your two questions?

A 7% guaranteed rate sounds like a free lunch. Do you beleive in free lunches? The tooth fairy? If the adviser left you with that impression, it is time to find another one. Fast.

GBurns, what designations do you have? What licenses? Should mrjones get one of them?

Yeah, sorry, 16 of course. Time for new eyes.

Why would it be other than 15? What a weird plan. Normally the 55 & 15 would be an ERD not a NRD, which would of course change my answer.

It isn't prohibited. It just doesn't integrate properly which means it isn't a safe harbor and must be tested.