dmb

Thanks again Andy, greatly appreciated. We are researching carefully.

Thanks Andy. I hope you're right Andy, but do you know of a code or reg section from which you have the understanding?

A prospective not for profit client has a DB plan and a 403(b) plan that includes employer contributions. Can the two plans be aggregated for 410(b) testing? Thanks.

Has anyone prepared the 2008 and/or 2009 Schedule B or SB filing for an Eligible Charity Plan? I understand they have the option of operating under pre-PPA or PPA rules for 2008 but must be on pre-PPA rules for 2009. Does anyone know of any guidance on filing the Schedule B or SB for either year considering the E-filings requirement for 2009? Thanks.

Has anyone been unfortunate enough to have to deal with the new definition of "Eligible Charity Plans" that came out in the Pension Relief Act of 2010 as well as possible subsequent technical corrections? If so how have you or how will you be filing the 2009 Schedule B?? For example, will you be using the 2007 Schedule B marked up for 2009 plan year?? Special attachments?? Can funding methods be changed for 2008 and/or 2009 and if so, how?? Are contributions reported on Schedule SB (if previosly filed) locked in?? If employer elects to use PPA method for 2008 and Pre-PPA method for 2009, how is the pre-PPA credit balances, amortization bases and methods carried forward from 2007 to 2009?? With regard to the special rule use of the third segment rate as the current liability rate, do any of hte funding relief provisions apply, that is can we use a lookback month and is the basis subject to change until eventually locking in at some point?? I realize this is probably not a mainstream topic, but any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Yes i do, and another one also: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one"

Facetious or not, i think that's what is going to happen. I have been advising client to file for extension since i heard about the new Sched SB instructions from someone who went to the Northeast Benefits Conference a couple of weeks ago. Thanks for the response.

I have heard that new instructions will be issued for the 2009 Schedule SB. Has anyone else heard this and if so are you still preparing 2009 Schedules SB or waiting for the new instrucitons? Thanks.

Are Non-ERISA Church DB Plans subject to top heavy??? Thanks.

I saw the letters, extremely satisfying, payback's a you know what!!

PBGC issued Technical Update 10-2 yesterday (maybe Tuesday) outlining procedures to apply for reinstatement of original filing if original filing was filed on timely basis and if line 7 was properly checked for APFT and the funding target was actually the APFT. See the what's new section on PBGC website.

Line 24 asks if a change has been made to the non-prescribed assumptions. I think that would not include the interest rate basis for calculating PPA funding requirement. We have not released any 2009 Schedules SB yet, but were thinking the change in interest rate basis was not a method change. I suppose we could be wrong.

Thanks for all the responses.

Ok, so lets take this a step further. If participant is an HCE who would be restricted, how would the 110% test be calculated as of 7/1/10. There would be no funding assumption elections to based the liability on. Would it be reasonable to use the old Current Liability as the basis for liability?? And as for the final regs, the only thing i see is where it says that a plan that was subject to 436 limitations before plan termination would continue to be subject to them after plan termination. Does that imply that plans that are not subject to 436 limitations before termination continue to not be subject to 436 limitations after plan termination??

Am aware of HCE restrictions and 110% test issues. thank you both for your advice.

Thanks Andy. So assuming that there will be no PPA restrictions for the particpant described in original post since 2010 presumed AFTAP is still above 80% until 10/1/10, lets move on to actually calculating the AFTAP as of 7/1/10. Since there is no funding requirement since plan terminated 4/15/10, is there a credit balance as of 7/1/10?? And what happens if assets are not distributed by 7/1/11, how would AFTAP be calculated and credit balance determined then?? I will check the final regs a little closer. Thanks again.

DB plan year is 7/1-6/30. Plan termination date is 4/15/10. Participant is claimiing retirement benefit as lump sum payable 7/1/10. 2009 AFTAP is above 80% but less than 90%. What are the rules with regard to AFTAP calculation (if required) after plan termination but prior to distribution of assets upon plan term which probably won't take place before 12/1/10? Thanks.

First year of Non-profit organization is 2010. There are no owners and three of ten participants are earning more than $110,000 in 2010. Are there any HCEs in 2010 if there was no employer in 2009? Thanks.

No, credit balance is only deemed to be waived if AFTAP could be increased to 80% (or 60% as the case may be). Since your AFTAP is over 80%, no deemed waiver of credit balance is necessary.

Depends on what you're funded status as to whether you're exempt from setting up current base. If funded status based on assets less prefunding (or just assets if no election made to apply prefunding balance) is at least 96% then no new base. If its less than 96% then you have a negative base.

I saw the letter. Came off as very arrogant. while it may be "clear" that Box 5 needs to be checked to elect the Alternative FT, it can't be all that clear if so many didn't check it. In my case it was just a careless mistake. Just forgot to check box 5. Page 2 gave every indication the AFT was used and it was filed timely. Nice of them to offer to waive penalties while they make that back in additional premiums.

Agreed again, especially for a plan that froze at 12/31/08 where there will be no normal cost (other than expenses) for 2009. In your example it seems reasonable to assume the 2009 expenses are less than the $1,000,000 excess assets!

I didn't think that was the way it worked. I thought you only consider the transition percentages when determining if a new base is created and how much that base should be. You don't wipe our prior bases until the actual shortfall (ignoring transitions) is zero. Sorry for the confusion regarding the 94% issue, i was only trying to confirm that it was possible to screwed out of a negative base by being exempt from setting up a current year base.

Agreed. Ultimately the required quarterly is lesser of 100% of prior year or 90% of current year. I don't think it matters when the actual 2009 funding requirement was determined.

A client filed the 2009 PBGC Comprehensive Filing using the Alternative Method to calculate the Variable Rate Premium. Box 5 actually making the election was not checked. All the correct boxes were checked on page 2 and the form was filed on a timely basis. I know the PBGC is taking a hard line on this issue. I was just wondering if anyone has had any success in getting PBGC to allow the Alternative Method to be filed in this circumstance (or am i the only one with a client that did not check box 5?). Thanks.