Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

That's what happens when you type on an I Phone. I will leave it for your amusement. By the way, I will comply with your request in a few million years or never, depending on your belief system.

Being the proposed legs caution using rates other than what's described, I am being conservative for now.

You didn't read my post correctly. I am not talking about that either. I know. When you encountered this situation, did you correct the EIN on the current year form? Did you indicate the change in EIN on the current year form? We have had to do this a few times and never got a letter.

Bill, I don't understand why you have had problems with a prospective fix. Because you can enter the EIN change on the 5500, the recognition of the new EIN used is automatic. We have never had a problem when employers changed their EIN.

I don't see that he is disagreeing, just point out the lack of guidance. I am hearing of the IRS interpretation second hand, but it does make sense to me to continue as before.

It's a 411(d)(6) issue. If the allocation percentages are hard-coded in the document, then only the contributions accrued on compensation through the date of the amendment are what need to be preserved. After all that is all that has been earned by the participants. The idea that the contribution formula can't be changed during the year stems from situations where there is a discretionary contribution, which is not the case here.

How is the new language materially different than 404(a)(1)(A) for years before 2008: the amount necessary to satisfy the minimum funding standard provided by section 412(a) for plan years ending within or with such taxable year (or for any prior plan year), if such amount is greater than the amount determined under clause (ii) or (iii) (whichever is applicable with respect to the plan) Because of this similarity I have heard the IRS considers the rules pre-PPA to still be in effect as outlined in the regulation you cited.

The point as brought up by K2 is that commissions are like other wages and are treated the same. The final 415 regs deal with how those wages are counted. The orginal post asks about when to count the commissions, when paid? Answer: yes, just like you would count salary. You state, "When employment is terminated and they do not work any hours that month, I do not count commissions", but you can't have that blanket policy. You must instead follow the doc, including the 415 amendment as written, to determine how that compensation is counted.

New 415 regs tell exactly how to handle it.

It's option 3 (I didn't check your APR's so I am just going with those numbers): Compute plan lump sum using plan benefit and plan AE (you already stated that 430 rates will yield a lower LS, so I went with that) - $180,000 * 12.1225594 = $2,182,061 Compare this to 415 LS limit which is the lesser of that computed using 5.5% & applicable mortality or plan's AE: $962,329 or $945,560 = $945,560 Now take the lesser of $2,182,061 or $945,560 = $945,560. Same concept as laid out in Rev. Rul. 98-1.

I would adjust it at the effective rate of interest for 2008. As to the original question of this post, supposedly Jim Holland (I am hearing this secondhand) thought it would be ok to post the 2008 AFTAP percentage, i.e. 12/31/07 information. I however, choose just to follow the instructions as written.

Post a real number example.

I agree that technically the way the question reads leads one to mark "yes". However, I believe this is a ridiculous result. After all what good does it do to mark the question "yes" for a REQUIRED change? I am marking the question "no" when the only change is what's required, but that's my personal choice.

There is no format. We made up our own.

Give that man a cigar! (another quote, but no, I am not looking for another answer.)

Depending on when the partner leaves depends on what they get. If they leave and the plan remains ongoing, they must get their full benefit. If they leave and the plan terminates, then the partners waive benefits and get less. Barring a crappy document provision preventing this, the partners (assuming they are HCE's) can waive basically however they want to even out any inequities. Back to a situation though where the plan is ongoing, yet it is underfunded. In that case the remaining participants are the ones feeling shorted. I have had groups agree to reduce the departing partner's receivables to adjust for this "windfall". But this can be tough to quantify and so it's much better if they are told up front to do whatever they can to keep the plan fully funded. Conservative investments and bringing it to full funding each year are two helpful ways. Keep in mind too that if there are NHCE's in the plan, top 25 HCE distributions are restricted. Lastly, this is much easier if it's a cash balance plan. If it's a traditional DB plan where 417(e) variances creep up, you have yourself another wrinkle to contend with.

I spent last night in a ditch. (bonus points to the one who tells me who uttered that quote)

I don't think the 1/2 is part of the "series of payments" nor do I think $10k in your example is. I even looked up a cite for you -- §1.402©-2, Q&A-6(a).

I am confused now. Which half are you talking about the non-restricted or the restricted? If it's the non-restricted, that is a lump sum and not part of a series of payments.

The N is definitely allowed to be rolled over. It does not have any of the characteristics of a payment that is ineligible for rollover.

A change in the plan's NRA will not cause the invalidation of prior valuations. It's perfectly fine to assume a different retirement age for the valuation than what's stated in the plan document.

Andy, I don't agree with your numbers. The use of the FSCB to satisfy the 2008 contribution does not increase the PFB more than if you didn't use the FSCB. See prop. regs. 1.430(f)-1(b)(ii) and example 4 later on -- (Aug 31 regs). I maintain the maximum PFB is still $53,000. I too believe this rule was put in place to avoid getting out of a reduction to the overall credit balances where there is a loss on plan assets. PM, to answer your question, the whole balance at the beginning of the year gets rolled forward at the ROR. Only the new addition to the PFB gets rolled forward at the effective rate. All this too is found in the Aug 31 prop. regs.

Due date of the 5500, including extensions. Since the contribution was sufficient to satisfy the minimum none of the FSCB would be used. Therefore it gets rolled forward at the plan's actual ROR and is equal to $60,000 at 12/31/08. The prefunding balance rolls forward at the effective interest rate, so it is $53,000 at 12/31/2008. You must burn the FSCB and then the PFB first.

Since the plan term is before 6/1/2008, no 415 amendment is required. Distribution date is irrelevant.

Hmm, a lot of questions. I will give you the two minute answer. First, Rev. Rul. 79-237 requires the funding standard account to only be until the end of the plan year in which it terminates. So if your plan terminated in 2008, you should never be filing a Sch SB for 2009. I too don't agree with your methodology in completing the B/SB in the year of termination. Just because the assets are distributed doesn't make an EOY valuation all zeroes. The distribution amount versus the liabilities created under the actuarial valuation will most certainly be different. An actual distribution could include a reduction in benefits (most often for the owner), an increase in benefits, valued under 417(e) rates, etc. The first two should absolutely not be considered for the valuation. And now you have PPA mandating the calculation of liabilities, so that further hampers this approach. Similar comments apply to your BOY valuation methodology. My two minutes are up.