Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

I don't understand your last sentence. Aren't you making an actuarially equivalent comparsion? If so, how is the QJSA 150% of other benefits? It should be 100%. "Using different actuarial assumptions would affect the comparisons." --- Would it? "The comparisons are based upon the 1971 Group Annuity MortalityTable and 6.50% interest." --- Benefits subject to 417(e) are not being compared under these assumptions.

I am not clear on which approach you mean. 1.417(a)(3)-1©(iv) is a nice cite for you. (I need to type slower or better.)

I don't think you should have posted copyrighted material GMP. I will leave it to moderators here on the board who are more familiar with ASPPA requirements and let them take it down if needed. As for the original question, if you are comparing all forms of benefit (other than those subject to 417(e)) to the QJSA and your other forms of benefits are actuarially equivalent to each other, then by definition your relative values will be 100%. Then when comparing those benefits subject to 417(e) to the QJSA using 417(e) rates, again you are at a 100% if the QJSA is the normal form of benefit.

I hadn't read that Grey Book answer and am surprised by it. Everything I have read or heard since 401(k) deferrals no longer applied toward the deduction limit was that the person's compensation would not count. This includes statements from IRS representatives on multiple occasions. This then transcends to the EA presenters take on the matter. I would be very leery counting compensation if not receiving an ER allocation.

Yes, 7.5%. 3%, but then gateway (of course could be OE and not needed).

My point is that you could always amend the a plan to add the QJSA form to accrued benefits. You cannot amend a plan to take away in-service distribution availability to accrued benefits. One is an addition, the other is a subtraction. It's an apples and oranges comparison.

I wouldn't consider that example a stricter application of rules when providing the QJSA benefit is an additional benefit. Not allowing for in-service distributions on applicable accrued dollars is a 411(d)(6) violation, the opposite of the example. The solution has to be a best estimate split of the dollars and maintainance of the in-service distribution option.

Ah, you are correct Mike. Certifying to an AFTAP after the first day of the fourth month of the following plan year is a 436 measurement date. Back to the range cert, my understanding is that's not available at all for a 2007 AFTAP.

A range certification is an alternative to knowing actual numbers, but you better be within the range when it's all said and done. Why are you worried about the 2007 AFTAP now (unless of course you are talking about non-calendar year plans)? It's too late for calendar year plans and they are restricted until you do a 2008 AFTAP.

Keep in mind you that at this point too you can't switch to a BOY val or your 2007 AFTAP is crap. Remember that the Notice requires 2006, 2007 and 2008 to be EOY vals.

Good to know. I hadn't gotten into the details far enough to know that.

Ak2, I am assuming your last sentence relates to a plan who actually is subject to the at-risk rules and not smaller plans.

I haven't come across anything that says this isn't correct.

Has anyone looked into who can sign the 5330 as a paid preparer? Is it limited to those that can practice before the IRS or can anyone sign? I can't find anything to show it's limited to the former.

The QJSA is important, not the normal form. What is the QJSA, 50% or 100%? If it's 100% and the 50% form is actuarially equivalent to the SLA, you are fine. If it's 50% you need a 75% option.

We just have them sign an 8905 to keep the 6-year cycle without question.

VCP. My recollection is the fee is $750.

You have a controlled group situation not a multiple employer plan situation so 413 doesnt apply. This question has been asked before. There is not clear guidance that I am aware of. Some will argue you must follow a reasonable split of the deduction. Others will argue that being a related employer means the deduction can be taken however they like.

I don't see where it says how old the son and daughter are. If both are under 21, pops gets their ownership by attribution and you have a controlled group between 1 and 2. If not, you don't.

Merging preserves the distribution restrictions of the MP dollars, so yes.

Mike, can you elaborate on your answer as to why you think this is permissible? Would you say someone could make contributions for years and not take the deductions until one future year when the total deduction is taken irrespective of current earned income?

How are your assets $1? Look at 430(g). Assets are as of the valuation date and there aren't any at that point. His example is a BOY val but even if it's an EOY valuation, you have to subtract out the contribution.

Ok, looks like I have some reading to do along with dmb.

And maybe because if you say the first year is 100% and the next year is 90% this is why they made it so the first year isn't really 100%. Did anyone attend the Larry Deutsch webcast in February? In it he has an example of a brand new plan starting in 2008. He states the first year's AFTAP is 0. He goes on to say that if $1 in contributions made in 2008 are designated as a 436 contribution the AFTAP becomes infinity --- 1/0. I haven't figured out yet how he gets there since he is including a dollar for the CURRENT year in his AFTAP. Obviously there is no prior year for which to contribute.

I wanted to get further elaboration on this one item. Why do you think an irrevocable election needs to be made BEFORE the range certification? Both contributions for the prior year and elections to use the FSCB made after the range certification are immaterial changes. Seems to me you can certify to 80% and then the plan better be at 80% with the final 2008 AFTAP but any determination of what is burnt won't be made until the final AFTAP is done. Distinguish this from a situation in which you are certifying to a 60-80% range in which I agree the presumption is 60% and you must burn the FSCB at that time if it will bring it to 80%.