Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

Uh, I meant "yes". I am surprised nobody said anything.

Personally, I don't think 79-237 made much sense in the first place. Why pro rate the NC in the year of term? If the benefit was accrued, why not fund for it? That being said, I don't see how PPA changed 79-237 and I don't know that anyone really does.

Read Notice 2008-30. Of course you seemingly could just remove the J&S optional forms.

I know the IRS does not like this approach. Whether they have standing to do anything about it is a different story, but just them not liking it may cause you problems.

I figured this question would have been asked here before, but I couldn't find it so here goes. Do you think Rev. Rul. 79-237 still applies in this post-PPA environment and NC and amortization payments are pro rated through the plan termination date?

....unless SHNEC is from date of plan entry compensation.

Is the doctor an HCE or an NHCE?

I don't follow how you can be sure you are lowering the funding target. If the plan has benefit X payable at the BOY, then that benefit will be actuarially increased if assumed to be payable at the EOY. Of course specific plan provision dictate whether or not the AE is required. That actuarially increased benefit may cause a higher or lower funding target depending on the amount of the increase versus the valuation assumptions.

I was focusing on the amendment to add NHCE participants to the plan which certainly can be done within 9.5 after PYE. Of course the amendment is too changing the HCE definition, so I agree because of that change, by year-end is needed.

No, you are confusing two points. A distribution from a DB plan sponsored by a related employer affects the 415 limits. If someone has a lesser benefit in the second plan because their 415 limit is reduced due to the distribution from the first plan, that affects the valuation. It's that amount of the distribution that has the effect. The changes in value once it moves to an IRA, a DC plan, or another DB plan of the employer are totally irrelevant. That is why I made this statement: To be clear, the rollover dollars, whether old DB money or not, will not affect the valuation. If there was a previous distribution from a DB plan sponsored by the same employer or related employer, that may affect the DB valuation. So once again, it's the distribution amount that matters, not the rollover amount. The rollover amount can change all it wants and it makes no difference. It's the distribution amount that is considered. Does that help at all?

Lou is absolutely correct because the first distribution in the year turning 70.5 must satisfy the RMD. This question has been asked numerous times on this board. For a cite how about somewhere in 1.409? See how talented I am in remembering cites?

Adding participants to a DB plan by definition can't be a cutback. You certainly have until 9.5 months after the plan year-end to make the amendment necessary for nondiscrimination testing. Of course you have 2.5 months after PYE to reflect in funding.

My vote is the latter assuming the document doesn't have language limiting the cash balance.

No.

BG, the doc will always define compensation for W-2 and self-employed individuals. The change in status will not require an amendment for that purpose.

Only 15 days notice required for a small plan. No information if it's a small or large plan. If someone can't get spousal consent right, they shouldn't be responsible for such tasks.

Janet, why 2010? Also, why not Sieve's suggestion instead of a separate plan and merge? Lastly, why restrict loans from MPPP dollars?

The Schedule R changes only applies to the attachment needed for multiemployer plans. If you aren't filing for one of those, then don't worry about it and use the 2007 forms.

Oops, I obviously didn't read your post well. I am saying what you are proposing.

See page 2 of the 2007 instructions. There are other threads on this if that doesn't satisfy you.

Compensation is not a requirement for a year of service.

Sieve, he said it's a corp, which has a 9/15 deadline. Buckaroo, I don't think that argument holds even a thimble of water. You could go with the allocation and then correct the 415 violation via EPRSC. It might be cost effective.

It's illogical to think the restrictions apply after plan term, but my understanding is it's the IRS' position that they continue to apply. As for your example Andy, I would use the 2008 funding status. Maybe someday we will know for sure.

This answers your question.

To be clear, the rollover dollars, whether old DB money or not, will not affect the valuation. If there was a previous distribution from a DB plan sponsored by the same employer or related employer, that may affect the DB valuation.