Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

I would put it more like this. I am stating that I know of nothing that allows you to have a non-TH vesting schedule in a TH plan, even if the plan covers only keys, or anything that allows you to apply the non-TH vesting schedule to only keys when the plan is TH.

Effen, you missed the point of what I was saying. I was not espousing that a minimum benefit is required; not even remotely was I saying that. Please reread my post.

Ah, but could you use a 5-year cliff vesting schedule? The plan would certainly be top heavy, so a 3-year cliff would be required. I don't see a way around this even though there are only keys in the plan.

And it became far more common after 401(k) deferrals no longer counted against the deduction limit. Thus less salary is needed to maximize the available contribution.

MGB, if the document allows, 401(k) deferrals can be distributed while actively employed if the participant reaches age 59 1/2.

Frank, I agree with your figures. Personally, I have never subtracted the interest credits off the assets when running the valuation, but it certainly is logical to do so, both to avoid an illogical loss in the year following and as not to "double count" as Ron points out. I will point out that reducing the assets by the interest credits would be contrary to the asset reporting instructions on the Sch B. I suppose you could argue that they are vague though. I wonder if any promulgations say more on the matter.

I found the prior post http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...&hl=eligibility Note the cite is 1.410(a)-3(e)(1) - example 6

Company A becomes an affiliated service group with Company B after the owners of A purchase part stock of B and begin doing business with them in early 2003. Both A and B maintain qualified plans. I know the transition rules allow each plan to pass coverage but don't apply to nondiscrimination. Therefore, when running the cross-testing of A's plan, I need to account for the eligible participants of B as zeroes in A's testing. They plans are not permissively aggregated. My question is what rules are there in counting prior service for the employees of Company B. If I don't count any of it before they became related employers, then all B employees are not eligible for A's plan and will be excludable in the nondiscrimination testing. Of course, if I need to count service before they became related employers, then they will factor in.

It's valid. I recall responding to a post previously to this question, so I know that this type of exclusion is stated specifically in the 410 regs somewhere.

We use Accudraft too with similar mixed results. My biggest beef is that they seem to provide language without fully contemplating all the necessary ramifications. For example, when the gateway rules came into effect, they provided some nice fail-safe gateway language. The problem was that in the language the gateway was stated to be provided to Eligible Employees. Of course Eligible Employees had a definition tied to who was eligible for the profit sharing contribution for the year. This of course did not cover those who may benefit under a different source of nonelective contribution, like TH or a safe harbor nonelective. Also within that same language, no where did it state that the gateway minimum can be provided on compensation from date of plan entry. We still have documents that have the deficient language. The corrections were eventually made to new documents generated but not until our GUST document restatement process was well under way. There have been other instances as well. I will say though that they do seem to listen to their users and then implement the changes eventually.

The actual and expected UAL are not equal. The expected is as follows: UAL prior year - 962,530 NC prior year - 69,472 Cont prior year - (150,000) Total - 882,002 With interest to 12/31/02 = 882,002 * 1.06 = 934,922 The actual UAL = 1,093,922 - 161,981 = 931,941 The gain is then 2,981. Sure your assets earned exactly 6% and your liabilities increased as expected, but you also contributed mid-year, which accounted for increased earnings. The balance equation would be: Amort charges = 950,355 Amort credits = (2,981) CB = (14,559 * 1.06) Total = 931,941 UAL = 931,941

The Roth is better because you can take out the amounts contributed (not earnings) without penalty at any time, so that can be used for emergencies if needed. Vanguard, like I am sure everyone else, does offer auto checking deduction.

That is one old article. BTW, Keough shmeough, it's an antiquated term.

I enter 100% and did so even before the instructions clarified the response. That doesn't mean that 0/0 is 100% though, and it doesn't mean the Holland, whom I agree seems to be a "decent guy", says that 0/0 is 100%. It just is a logical answer to a indicate no 412(m) charges are calculated. My whole point, and it's a moot point at that, is that 0/0 does not equal 100%. Again, I apologize to everyone else reading this.

I will second Effen's comments. Although, once our valuation report was created in Excel, it became easy to dump Proval's output into our spreadsheet. Also, performing an EOY valuation is an easy workaround, but one we struggled with until we figured it out. It would be very good for 200-1000 life plans.

I didn't think I was being impatient, lazy perhaps, but not impatient. Anyway, she's been registered here longer than I have.

I think those statements are unrelated to 404(a)(1)(D)(iv). All Sal is reiterating there is the PBGC standard termination requirements that the plan be sufficient to satisfy benefit liabilities. So what are those requirements? While 4041(b)(1)(D) mentions the value of the benefit liabilites at the date of termination, I take that to mean that the benefits aren't still accruing after that date. See 4041(b)(2)(A)(i)(II) which outlines that the PV of the benefits is as of the date of distribution.

Ah, it's limited to the SLA, but it is not an SLA. As soon as the plan becomes sufficiently funded, the lump sum is distributed (assuming that was the election of course). I would consider it a lump sum election first, and that it's only because of the restriction that the SLA is being distributed now. Obviously though, others disagree. To be clear, I consider this to be different than David's scenario.

I have the '04 edition. Care to copy the language you read?

I have heard Jim Holland speak on this very topic and he said that the SLA payments paid to a restricted HCE as he is waiting for the plan to become sufficiently funded are ineligible for rollover. Personally, I would disagree, but who am I to chime in?

What version are you referencing? I looked up the pages you reference and the discussion seems appropriate, but I don't see that Sal is espousing that the date of termination is the date the determination is made for the rule. Personally, while I think the statutory language is unclear, it makes the most sense that the determination should be as of the date the distributions are made. What does seem puzzling though, and I will admit I haven't looked into it, is that what if the distributions go past 8 1/2 months of the following plan year? For a 12/31/03 date of plan termination where the distributions aren't made by 9/15/04, I don't see a mechanism to contribute and deduct contributions after 9/15/04. That is the only reason, I could see an argument for valuing the termination liabilities at a date different than the date of distribution.

Ah, but that is the trick, to identify the real deadline, but then again, that was the trick for the townspeople, to identify the real wolf. They, of course, did not do so. So the moral of the story is to not be like the townspeople, even though it is a role for which you are being cast.

Another round of submissions is correct, although you can be sure that it will get delayed for years on end just like the GUST deadline was. I liken the process to the boy that cried wolf. The IRS is the boy and we are the townsfolks.

There's no bail for the rubber room, silly. You can't put a price on mental health.

You'll be fine. Threaten to stick a banana in their tailpipe if they hassle you.