Mike Preston

Check the dates on the 5300.

Wasn't frozen.

Sending early to the IRS is not a problem. They key off of the date that the NTIP was provided to the participants.

Lists the 29th for what? I would expect the order of the dates to be reversed from what you are describing, so I must not be understanding. Sorry.

You don't need to do anything. The IRS/DOL will automatically add the correct number of days to ensure that the participants have the right to comment for the requisite number of days. As long as you have indicated the date that the NTIP actually went out, it should be fine. At least that is what they told me the one time a couple of years ago when we got confused on our dates. We received the letter of determination.

Off the top of my head, I'd say no.

In case it isn't clear, Andy's response means that the answer to the first question is "NO" and the answer to the second question is "YES."

Agreed.

I'm not so sure. I haven't reviewed the 204(h) (4980 something or other) regs for this particular issue, but as I recall they were a bit more lenient for things such as this than I would have originally thought. Certainly wouldn't hurt to read them and see, huh? Failing that, if the regs are silent, this one belongs squarely in the lap of an ERISA attorney.

Not nearly enough information. "a client" means: 1) sole prop 2) corp 3) other. Ownership of "a client" is, what, who, exactly? Other 22% of sub owned by whom? Type of work that "a client" does? Type of work that subsidiary does? Do they work for each other? That is just the tip of the iceberg. Basically, you are trying to see whether the entity sponsoring the plan is related to the entity that receives or pays the director's fees. It can get complicated.

Well, that is what the WRERA says, I think. Other opinions welcome.

OK, this is a bit clearer. You aren't burning the FSACB at 11/1/2007. Instead, you are burning a portion of the 11/1/2008 COB which has the effect of reducing the FSACB used in the determination of the 11/1/2007 AFTAP (Otherwise known as the pre-effective year AFTAP). Note that you are quoting a proposed regulation and while it is unlikely to change, you are technically in a period of good-faith compliance. You can certainly follow it, though. And, yes, the effect is that you can increase the result which is automatically provided as of the beginning of the 4th month in the 2008-2009 plan year (2/1/2009) by waiving a portion of the COB as of 11/1/2008.

You got that right.

OK, I'm a bit confused. What is this about burning balances before the effective date of PPA?

I think you've got it.

I think the "if they don't want to" part goes hand in glove with a correction mechanism, such as QMACs or QNECs.

Total and complete relief, as far as I know.

Having now read the section, I agree with you, Frank, that a more consistent approach would be to use BOY rate for any valuation date. I wonder why they decided to go against the way they previously interpreted the provision?

Thanks

Could you clarify what provision provides for an assumed rate of return?

Frank, what are you quoting from?

I thought there was special language in the regulations that applied to the first plan year. That language, too, would be superfluous, wouldn't it?

"can not" is a strong phrase. A simple amendment would allow it.

Which months are those?

I think you've made my point. If 417(e) would project out to be higher than AE, doesn't that mean you should be using it? Or did you mean higher rates (which would mean a lower present value)?