AndyH

I'd get that fish for you, but he does have a point. If you had no employees then you could have your own plan, so there is probably a good reason why you have them.

joeyd, A 401(k) plan sounds like the way you should lean. That way you "may" not have to contribute on behalf of your employees. But you may find it in your interest to do so so that they participate which in turn allows you to mzximize your savings opportunity. There are sharks in the water so speak to several potential service/investment providers.

Mr. Spock might not agree with the logic of this conclusion. Kindly explain or retract. Would the EOE please explain these things?

Yes, it can, if you define comp as average comp or if you choose to modify it in any of a number of ways. No, I don't necessarily agree. The benefit can be tested as either a percent of pay or as a dollar amount unrelated to compensation. Back to the original question, if you choose to use plan year comp the rules are defined in the definition in 1.401(a)(4)-12 which would seem to allow you to do what you propose. But since the rules are a bit ambigous, Mike's comments about not relying on this to pass represents wise advice.

flosfur, is the plan formula related to service? If so, isn't the comp annualizing balanced by multiplying by less than 1 YOS? I think that what you propose may work, but I'd like to hear more specifics on that the actual accrued benefit is and how it is determined.

Beautiful, Kong. How do we un-retire Mike, anyways?

So the sensitive one is entertaining us once again?

If you have not seen this it may be helpful http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...opic=25756&st=0

My favorite words of wisdom are Let it Be. For no reason other than common sense, I'm with Bob K on this. I don't think there really is a short plan year except for filing of 5500 forms etc. so I don't see any proration issue. Lori, when are we going to see Theo's Plan B/C for pitching? Before July I hope. Blinky's other former pitcher is going to be in commercials soon about hitchhiking to NYC to break the curse of A-Rod.

I think it is clear that you are correct. The amendment is the issue. You can't add a DC plan to a DB plan, call it an offset, and reduce an accrued benefit. The analogy does not fly.

You win because you said we have to first figure our what is being awarded. And you win.... ... perhaps a free webcast (ASPA owes me) on DROs and how to write funny letters shippin em back to the general practice attorney who drafted it without having a clue what the words mean.

Aha. parlais vous francais? Here's a few possibilities I found: SC France Société civile. Partnership with full liability. SC Poland Spólka prawa cywilnego. Partnership with all partners having unlimited liability. S.C. Spain sociedad en commandita. General Partnership. I did learn that SC is not a permitted corporate ending in many U.S. States because it is not on the acceptable list.

My opinion is that is as good a guess as any but I think the language makes very little sense and the DRO should be rejected or at least a more detailed explanation of the intent of the DRO should be obtained. Whoever wrote this did not seem to have a grasp of the issues. But then again that is the norm, not the exception, from my experience.

OK, my turn. Pax wins the prize. First, is this a DRO (proposed QDRO) or a QDRO (approved)? If it was approved, it should not have been unless what it says was readily determinable. Jay, that is question #1. Question #2 is "Exactly what does it say is being awarded?". Do the words "actuarial equivalent" appear and if so, how? The trick is to convert the accrued benefit payable at the participant's age to an equivalent amount based upon the AP's age. If you don't do that, the plan could lose and that means you have a flawed QDRO. You cannot do a lump sum calc without these items being resolved first.

Good question. I don't see why not. It's commonly used for DB testing and DB/DC testing and certainly for coverage testing of DB and DC plans. I don't think it is common for an a(4) test of a DC plan but I don't know of anything prohibiting it.

Can you be a little more specific about what you wish to do? These procedures are more internal to the calcs than explicit. I could see, for example, using an HCE definition based upon the current year's pay instead of the prior year as one possible shortcut if the result would not change by any meaningful amount?

Emily Litella: " " Fill in the blank. Or was that Rosanna Rosannadanna?

Isn't there a violation of form as well as operation? I'm not sure that a quick fix covers prior years. Gary, I would require the client to seek legal advice as a condition of doing further work. And, FWIW, the first example had the HCE with 23 years of projected service and the second 20, thus the differences in the suggested fix.

I agree kind of. The absolute figures may or may not be correct. They would be correct if this plan only covered these two people always, and the plan was intended to meet the alternative flat benefit safe harbor, both of which are assumptions that may be incorrect. I agree with your concept and the relative accrual rates but I'm not as comfortable about needing to apply this to all 13 years. There could have been other ways of satisfying the rules in prior years. But for a new plan, for example, your concept is correct.

Thanks Belgarath! I just glanced at your links so far, but they look to be extremely helpful. I owe you one.

Amend the plan so that the denominator of the accrual fraction is limited to a maximum of 32 years.

Interesting and useful. Thank you. As I noted initially, however, my principal question is about private colleges and universities, not public ones. From a very limited survey that I did several years ago that I wish to update and augment, they all seem to have 8%-12% employer paid DC plans 100% vested and funded through 403(b) structures. I have yet to find much incidence of DB plans, which I am somewhat surprised by. Clearly some had them but terminated them. mbozek, any connections or leads to this type of survey data?

Care to explain to "those of us who might otherwise be unclear" how who and what determine if public college/university employees are covered under Social Security? Not that it is directly related to my question, but it is an interesting side issue.

Actually, my interest is private non-aligned. I did a local survey, the results of which were consistent your comments, but it was not exactly a statistically significant sample.

Can anyone point to any surveys of retirement plans sponsored by private colleges and universities. Prevalance of DB plans. Contribution data for DC plans. Similar information. Thanks for any suggestions.