StormShadow

I would redo the val and redo the AFTAP. Redo the val per previous posts (and I'm assuming the minimum required will change, so you would want to redo the val, right?). Redo the AFTAP because it's usually easier for me to generate a new AFTAP than add an attachment to Sch SB, Line 15 for "Reconciliation of difference between valuation results and amounts used to calculate AFTAP". As an aside, if the 2015 AFTAP was certified before adding the 2014 excess contribution to the PFCB, then later adding to the PFCB causes the 2015 AFTAP to go below 60% - that is not considered an immaterial change (i.e. it is a material change) and may have qualification issues.

Out of curiosity, how does Datair treat 0 compensation employees and what is their line of reasoning?

I agree... no compensation, no opportunity to defer = not benefitting and exclude from test. This would apply to either the owner or employee.

If you need to reflect the amendment for the 2013 valuation, you will need a 412(d)(2) election. However, in the 2011 Gray Book, the IRS basically said no discretionary amendment can take effect after the end of the plan year. I believe people are disagreeing with the IRS here, right? As you mentioned, since this amendment cannot stand by itself, it would not be an 11(g) amendment so it will have to be tested in 2014. So, just pass testing in 2014 and don't forget AFTAP issues.

They could just have a pooled trust with no individual-direction. I believe John Hancock and Hartford among others do just recordkeeping, although not sure of their fees.

I think you can argue that a 0% MPP where only the owner has a balance is not ERISA covered and thus no bond would be necessary. Based on other threads, plans that were under IRS/DOL audit without bonds, the IRS/DOL just said get a bond retroactively and show proof. Furthermore, it has been noted that the only bonding enforcement is through a lawsuit... I do not think any judge will force this plan to get a bond when it is clear that there is no way for anyone else's money to be in the plan. Have you tried calling the DOL and asking for their opinion? Ultimately, let the client decide, just advise them on the issues and potential pitfalls. For filing purposes, you can file the SF and check the one-participant box, but be sure to fill in all the information.

I believe 19b is contributions specifically designated to avoid or terminate benefit restrictions. So in your case, you would put the entire amount in 19c. 1.436-1(f)(2)(ii)(B) Designation requirement.

Based on what you have posted, "the maximum amount that can be borrowed is the lesser of 50% of a Particiapnt's Vested Interest or $50,000...", it does not say Vested Interest after Loan Fee so my feeling is that the loan is allowable. If there is no loan, the Participant's Vested Interest is $2,093 and 50% is $1,046. However, I would check past plan procedures to see what has been done in these situations (for example, if you KNOW there is a big loss on the day you are processing the loan, do you reflect that in the Vested Interest?). If this situation has never been an issue, I would ask the plan sponsor/administrator what they want the procedure to be (and get it in writing/email).

I work on a few guild aggregated plans and most, if not all, do not want their Guild benefits to be limited. They want us to make sure the 1-man plan benefits do not exceeed the combined 415 limit. Otherwise, they are "losing" out on some benefits. Have you talked with the client? You should also check the plan document (of the 1-man plan) to see if AB is limited when there is another DB plan. We limit the benefit in the 1-man plan so that it does not exceed the 415 when aggregated with the Guild benefit. We normally have them commence their Guild benefit first, then figure out what needs to be done with the 1-man plan (if excess assets, bring in spouse or set up QRP if possible). We also try to have them take their Guild benefits early or with 100% J&S to maximize 415 available in the 1-man plan, depending on the Guild.

This was not part of the your question, however I just want to remind you that if the DB plan was a hard freeze before 9/1/2005, it is not subject to accelerated distribution restrictions under PPA. Back to the original question. I second rcline - if the PVAB is going to be shown at all, it needs to be caveated to the maximum especially the fact that the PVAB may decrease.

The election must be made no later than the last date for making the MRC. If you missed quarterlies, you can still use the PFB but will need to discount with additional 5%. As Andy points out, you will need to be careful of ordering rules to make sure the balance is still available (for example, a deemed election may result in less balance than you thought when you go to make the election to offset MRC).

It was a little difficult to read your post because sentences were cutting off and running to the next line, so hopefully I am reading this correct... The 2011 AFTAP you certified based on 12/31/2010 valuation is your 2011 AFTAP. Unless you need to recertify, you do not need a "final" 2011 AFTAP. Your 2011 AFTAP is 91% and you have until 10/1/2012 to certify your 2012 AFTAP (if you do not want to be subject to restrictions) - which would be based on 12/31/2011 val. As far as issuing a funding report without an AFTAP, I don't think this is required. However, I believe there has been prior discussions as to whether a funding report is in itself an AFTAP (how about the SB?).

It is probably a function of their asset allocation. When I worked on large plans, the auditors wanted to see all kinds of support for how the clients chose their interest rates. However, they were much more demanding when using a higher interest rate, so perhaps they don't care as much using a lower rate.