Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

I was brought in by auditors to have a conference call with an actuary who had one FASB client. Nothing balanced, nothing made sense. After all how good would you be if you did it only once a year and "it" kept changing. Run. Run fast. Run fast and far away to an actuary who does this more often and hope he doesn't find a bunch of errors.

This might all be a moot discussion if indeed the technical corrections wipe away the 105% rule, but I will carry it on just a little longer. From past readings of the proposed regs. my understanding is that for funding, if a lump sum is assumed and the benefit is not at the 415 limit, the only change in valuing the benefits from an annuity basis is to use the '08 Applicable Mortality Table instead of the sex distinct table (whatever that table is called, I don't remember). However, there is no change in the interest rate assumption, you still use the funding segment rates. In other words, there is no different 417(e) interest assumption. I would presume then that when valuing a benefit at the 415 limit, when considering the 105% of 417(e) rate limit, the same methodology would be followed and no different 417(e) assumption is made, just that the the rates are equal to the segment rates for funding. I didn't understand this comment. I never mentioned needing to value the greater of the plan benefit and 417(e) benefit, because I gave as fact that the lump sum was at the 415 limit. One additional item. I forgot to mention that I know of the allowable adjustments that can be made to the interest rates to distinguish between how the funding rates are phased in versus the 417(e) rates. I wouldn't consider that an assumption of future rates though.

SoCal, the post is in regard to funding a benefit at the 415 limit, not an actual distribution of benefit.

Thanks all. Fortunately all my DB plans are under 500 lives and don't have enough funding to qualify for PBGC reporting, so at least I don't have to worry about that nonsense.

I am curious when and in what manner people are notifying participants of late quarterlies over 60 days late. I have never figured out when these are due to participants as the language in 101(d) is "...at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe."

I would not file under DFVC as the first solution. Instead try filing an amended return. If you run into problems, and I doubt you will, then you can file under DFVC.

When you are completing Corbel's checklist one of the options is to generate a 415 tack on amendment. I would recommend generating that amendment with your restatement since the deadline for adoption is the tax return due date after 415 regs. are effective (as soon as 9/15/08 for June year-ends). Our office has gone through it and it seems fine to me. As I mentioned before, I haven't seen language available for the other amendments with the EGTRRA restatements, but that's okay since they aren't needed as soon as the 415 amendment is. Again I am not following your original question about using "old tack on amendments". Some examples of those old amendments are: the EGTRRA "Good Faith" amendment, 401(a)(9) amendment, 401(k) regs. amendment, and others. All of those provisions are already in the EGTRRA restated document, so of course you don't need those. Have you gone through a checklist yet? Maybe that will help.

I didn't check your math or your APR, but what you say appears to be correct.

I opined to nothing other than the phrase is not, "no hours, not in the test" but rather "no compensation, not in the test".

I moved this topic to the appropriate forum. Corbel should provide you with the appropriate amendments after EGTRRA. I know 415 is of immediate concern. The others have deadlines that are a bit away and I don't know that the language is available with Corbel yet. If so, I haven't seen it. I am not sure what you mean by "old tack on amendments received years ago".

The phrase in question, is "no compensation, not in the test", uttered by Jim Holland repeatedly.

I guess seriously overfunding CB plans is the new 412(i).

Tom, isn't the determination as to whether or not the 401(a)(17) limit must be pro rated the definition of the compensation period, not the limitation year?

You only can't use 2007 forms for 2008 if you have to file a Sch SB. You say the plan terminated 1/31, the last day of the plan year. Thus, you don't have to file a Sch SB for 2008 and can file 2007 forms. I know there is some other multiple employer schedule or something too that requires 2008 forms to be filed, but I don't want to take the time to look it up.

All years are permissible.

Remember though that the 415 Regs. don't apply until limitation years beginning after 7/1/07

I admit it. No.

I can point you to my strong opinion against this method. Ask yourself what is the point of the lost earnings? Answer yourself that it is to make the participants whole due to the fact that their 401(k) deferrals were not in the plan sooner than they should be. Now let's examine the plan. Even though it's a pooled account, participants with 401(k) deferrals are allocated a proportionately higher share of the earnings (and losses) due to their deferrals. Thus, the respective earnings should be allocated appropriately to only those with late deferrals.

Absolutely.

Enda, be sure not to forget about 415(e) which, although repealed, can still exist as a limit in the defined benefit document. But if the plan is top heavy, not super top heavy mind you, the employer can provide the enhanced contribution to "buy back" the fraction. This is an important consideration in 0.00001% of plans and thus I took the time to mention it.

I am not here to opine whether or not the loan can be restored just to say even if it could, it wouldn't erase the tax consequences of him receiving his distribution. Therefore, what is the purpose? I seriously doubt the participant wants to restore a loan just to create basis. Too his loan limits aren't affected since it's an actual distribution and not a deemed distribution.

I have always followed the rule that if the person can give himself the notice, the notice is not required. The cite is Blinky(3)(a)(1). If anyone disagrees, ask thyself who will complain?

The D-backs will trade Randy Johnson for Manny straight up if you folks still pay Manny's salary. It's would have been an even hair trade years ago, but now we are getting the best of that deal (or worst depending on your perspective). Unless of course Manny's is a weave.

3% is sufficient because of their removal from DB participation.

I like the OPPC name. If I was you, I would market a song for it to the tune of O.P.P http://www.lyricsdepot.com/naughty-by-nature/opp.html