Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

- "2006" should refer to a fiscal year beginning in 2006, not (necessarily) ending in 2006.

- See Q&A5 of IRS Notice 2007-28 for discussion about plan amendments in the last 2 years.

I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.

Posted

Notice 2007-29 will say that the subliminal intent of the IRC is that if there has been any consideration of adopting a DC plan in the past 48 months or if any HCE has sneezed within the last 2.99 years then the 150% goes away.

:angry:

Posted

???

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Posted

Nah. Warnings on things which are a little like whack-a-mole are a good thing. I don't think I've met anybody who said that they interpreted the Code the way the IRS published in the Notice.

The only issue where there appears to be disagreement amongst practitioners is whether the sneezing applies both to the regular 150% limit (obviously it does) and the 100% limit inherrent in 404a7. I've seen some folks I respect line up on the opposite side of the fence from me. Not that my side is unpopulated. Just that there is a scattered opinion on this one issue. On my side are those folks who believe that the 100% UCL minimum referenced in 404a7 is NOT reduced by any CL attributable to amendments for HCE's within the last x (2?) years.

Posted

Just to be clear Andy, I was questioning "07-29". I assumed you were ranting about 07-28, but I wasn't exactly sure.

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Posted

AndyH did a nice job of parody on 07-28.

ASPPPPPPA apparently has registered their concerns. Gooooood for the industry because 07-28 is a problem.

Posted

In what situation would you lose the 150% deduction if the DC is less than 6% for a one person plan? Would this also apply if the plan covers only owner and spouse?

  • 3 weeks later...
Guest lerieleech
Posted

I was at a luncheon today at which Brian Graff spoke.

He said there will be some kind of technical correction re Q and A #9 of Notice 2007-28. He elaborated, but I really couldn't determine what he was saying.

Posted

When do the last two years end? E.g., Plan adopted 1/1/2007. Do two years end December 31, 2008 so that 150% can be reflected 1/1/2009 or do two years end January 1, 2009 so that 150 cannot be reflected until January 1, 2010?

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Guest lerieleech
Posted
When do the last two years end? E.g., Plan adopted 1/1/2007. Do two years end December 31, 2008 so that 150% can be reflected 1/1/2009 or do two years end January 1, 2009 so that 150 cannot be reflected until January 1, 2010?

If there was no other DB plan within the last two years, the two-year moratorium doesn't even apply, and the 150% can be reflected in 2007.

Notice 2007-28, Q&A #5

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use