DRC vs. JCWAA expiration

[Guest dsyrett]

1. Under current law, am I subject to DRC for 2004 under the following:?

1/1/04 RP CL%, i = 105% = 5.51%: 83.0%

1/1/03 RP CL%, i = 120% = 6.65%: 83.9%

1/1/02 RP CL%, i = 120% = 6.85%: 93.4%

1/1/02 RP CL%, i = 105% = 6.00%: < 90%

1/1/01 RP CL%, i = 105% = 6.21%: 103.7%

In other words, for my 04 volatility test, can I use my 02 120% result or must I recompute 02 and use at 105%?

2. For DRC, in determining whether I am above or below a 100 participant count for all DB plans of an employer, are participants in collectively bargained plans counted (ie., plans run by a union in which employees of the employer participate along with employees of other employers)?

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

You do not have to recompute the past years' RPA numbers. Thus, because your current year is > 80% and your second and third years are > 90%, 412(l) is $0 for 2004.

As noted in 412(l)(6)©, there is no stipulation that certain DB plans are excluded, so count the union plans/participants.

[AndyH]

But, you would need to recompute 2003 at 105% if it were relevant for 412(l), and also you need to recompute it for 2004 quarterlies, wouldn't you agree, Blinky? Or do you think not? I am told yes, but I haven't looked at it closely myself.

[Effen]

I'm not Blinky, but FWIW, I agree

[Mike Preston]

For this purpose, I believe if the plan is a multi-employer plan (that is, it is not sponsored by the employer in question) then that plan (and its participants) would not be aggregated.

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

Andy, you are referring to the rule in 412(m)(7)(B) that requires you to recompute the 2003 numbers for determining if 2004 is subject to 412(m). This same stipulation does not apply (that I can see at least) to 412(l).

I see Mike posted too. The content of which is something I cannot agree or disagree as I have never researched it, although chances are good it's correct.

[Guest dsyrett]

Thanks for the replies.

Since (1) gets me where I want to be, I don't need and answer to (2) - at least for the moment.

[AndyH]

Blinky, I'm with you on 412(l), but is your 412(m) cite right?

Never mind, I found the connection. Thanks.