Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

The push for NRA 62+ is in-service distribution related. If that's what is restriced to age 62, then by all means a lower NRA can apply to other provisions. Remember though that the actuarial valuation considers your best assumption. Either amendment choice is irrelevant to your assumed NRA for funding.

Yes, it has the same deadline as the PPA amendments.

That is a fine question. WRERA says the following: In the case of the first plan year beginning during the period beginning on October 1, 2008, and ending on September 30, 2009, sections 206(g)(4)(A) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1056(g)(4)(A)) and 436(e)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied by substituting the plan’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage for the preceding plan year for such percentage for such plan year but only if the adjusted funding target attainment percentage for the preceding plan year is greater. Notice that it doesn't say any sort of election needs to be made. Because it doesn't, my opinion is that the preceding year percentage applies automatically and accruals are not frozen.

Ah, but it might not be conservative. If the last payroll before 9/4/09 was also before 8/31/09, then you are being a hyper-aggressive maniac.

You have a choice. The preable in the final regs says: Except as otherwise provided, the determination under the regulations of a plan’s funding target and target normal cost for a plan year are determined based on plan provisions that are adopted no later than the valuation date for the plan year and that take effect during that plan year. Skip ahead a few paragraphs to: Thus, if an amendment is adopted after the valuation date for a plan year (and no later than 21⁄2 months after the close of the plan year) but takes effect during that plan year, the full increase in liability is taken into account as of the valuation date for that plan year if a section 412(d)(2) election is made, and none of the increase in liability is taken into account as of the valuation date for that plan year if no section 412(d)(2) election is made. Of course you are in 2009 and either operating on good faith or electing to apply the final regs.

While I too would use 8/12, I don't think there is one right answer. Look at the language of §1.401(a)(17)-1(b)(3)(iii), particularly the part I bolded. If compensation for a period of less than 12 months is used for a plan year, then the otherwise applicable annual compensation limit is reduced in the same proportion as the reduction in the 12-month period. For example, if a defined benefit plan provides that the accrual for each month in a plan year is separately determined based on the compensation for that month and the plan year accrual is the sum of the accruals for all months, then the annual compensation limit for each month is 1/12th of the annual compensation limit for the plan year. In addition, if the period for determining compensation used in calculating an employee's allocation or accrual for a plan year is a short plan year (i.e., shorter than 12 months), the annual compensation limit is an amount equal to the otherwise applicable annual compensation limit multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the number of months in the short plan year, and the denominator of which is 12. As you can see, it doesn't state that the proration is on whole months, so you could certainly use a fractional month in the numerator. Keep in mind too that if the last payroll was sometime before the termination date, the allocation is based on that date, not the termination date and a precise proration is through that earlier date.

So it's not covered by the PBGC, which means that you can go back to A the A's quote below.

I have never sought or received a response to a RCL, nor has a client of mine. No news is good news. There haven't been any penalties assessed to date. I am not sure how many times a family member can die. (Yes, I am joking.)

The ratio is 1/20 / 8/10 = 6.25%, even worse. MLML, if you post the contributions as a percentage of compensation and each person's EBAR, you might receive some specific help if it's possible to use component plans to pass.

Mathematically, a per pay period match cannot create a higher match than an annual calculation, so that thought can go right out the window since in her example you quoted the person received a higher match.

I feel like I have profited from your pain since your new signature made me laugh out loud.

Since 404(o) references assets determined under 430(g)(3), I would be very hesitant to reduce those assets by nondeductible contributions until futher guidance comes out.

Every answer on BLink could be caveated with "check the plan document", so that is a given. A document should absolutely not limit what compensation can be used for testing, but rather should have a general reference to 414(s). QDROphile will tell you what he thinks of a document that does otherwise.

Maybe. Sure you pass the ACP test but have you considered testing for BRF on the rate of match? If you have no problems there, then I can't think of a reason you need to test the plan compensation. You don't mention it, but I assume you pass ADP testing and have no other nondiscrimination testing to run.

Question: which bear is best? Answer: no bear is best. Response: Wrong! Black bear is best.

I would take a llama in a heartbeat.

Hmm, it appears you are right. The reference to 1563 is just regarding corporations.

That was very helpful Kevin. I did manage though to get the aforementioned "friender" to delete me as a friend a week or two ago. Dang it. I was wrong. I wasn't deleted. Sigh.

The type of business is irrelevant. Ownership for PBGC purposes considers 1563 attribution. No one has mentioned the age of the son. He is attributed his parents' ownership until age 21. Since a substantial owner is someone who doesn't have 10%+ in the last 5 years, the plan doesn't become PBGC covered until the son reaches age 26. Happy birthday.

Ah, an important piece of information. Now you have a failing test. Rev. Proc. 2008-50 is your next stop. We have a legitimate thread here, so I cleaned up the nonsense.

I am not saying don't disaggregate the statutory and OE employees. I am saying permissively aggregate the OEE for the 401(k) portion of the plan. Do you see the difference? The statutory employees will continue to be separate from the OEE and plans A and B are not permissely aggregated for them either.

So you have disaggregated the 401(k) component by statutory and OE employees. Why not permissively aggregate the OEE group for coverage and nondiscrimination for the 401(k) portion? Then don't you have a passing coverage test?

I think VEBA is good for these boards. We need guys next to expensive automobiles striking "success" poses. We need the valuable information in the articles posted, so valuable indeed that they are posted again and again so we don't miss the value. We need inane postings of profile information. We need grade school "nah uh" contridictions to posts, being called nerds and being told by a 60-year old we can't hang in a weekly football game. Okay, maybe we don't, but we do need a good laugh and source of amusement, so I am certainly enjoying it all.

I don't think there is even a reference in the code to material change, so yes, we are talking about proposed regs, the only rules we have at this time. Mike, do you think if the final regs come out, even though they are effective 2010, and they mirror the proposed regs on this situation, you would not follow them pre-2010? I would be wary about doing that, like I am wary of a big, but toothless dog.

I think you can elect to change the FT and agree with your due dates. If the change in the FT changes the range, I don't see how you can "live" with an AFTAP that is in an incorrect range. The plan would be operated incorrectly then based on some AFTAP that is wrong. Since you can't live with it and have to recertify, you have a material change. Since you have a material change you can't change the FT in the first place. That's my logic. If anyone has heard this works differently, I would love to know. I think it's a crap result.