Blinky the 3-eyed Fish Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 Tell me if I am wrong about a calendar year plan. If the 2007 and 2008 AFTAP are not certified, then there are no distribution restrictions until 4/1/2008 under this special rule this year. So, it's a potential advantage to not certifying to the 2007 AFTAP too soon. Of course if the numbers are available and it's clearly underfunded but it's just that no actual certification has been signed, anyone see that as a problem? It seems strange that there is an advantage to burying your head in the sand. "What's in the big salad?" "Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."
Andy the Actuary Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 Would agree with your interpretation. This is tantamount to not having to perform an environmental assessment and clean-up of your contaminated land until you sell it. As long as you own it, you can continue to pollute the watertable. Other than the law permits, what is the rational basis for potentially making a plan more underfunded when you know it can't meet the safe-harbor criteria? 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.
Blinky the 3-eyed Fish Posted February 11, 2008 Author Posted February 11, 2008 I don't like that example. Thanks to that nuclear waste in my lake, I now have that third eye. "What's in the big salad?" "Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."
david rigby Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 Not sure about rationale, but this is the one I thought of: Consider a plan that pays full lump sums. Suppose the business owner/management does not want to pay a lump sum to a particular retiring/terminating EE for whatever reason (fear that he/she will use the LS to set up a competing business, etc). By delaying the process of certifying the FTAP/AFTAP, the plan falls below the level at which a LS can be paid. No doubt, others can contribute additional reasons. 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.
FAPInJax Posted February 11, 2008 Posted February 11, 2008 A discussion similar to this occurred during one of the meetings (unrecorded of course). The general gist was that many actuaries felt 'uncomfortable' delaying a certification when the information was available.
Guest KennyH Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 During one fo the webcast's Jim Holland mentioned they would take a negative view of anyone intentionally delaying a certification to game the system in this manner. I remember a pretty strong statement to the effect of the individuals involved would have some serious issues to deal with but don't really remember any specifics.
AndyH Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 During one fo the webcast's Jim Holland mentioned they would take a negative view of anyone intentionally delaying a certification to game the system in this manner. I remember a pretty strong statement to the effect of the individuals involved would have some serious issues to deal with but don't really remember any specifics. I also heard this, but I would characterize the comment as a bit stronger- as a warning.
david rigby Posted February 13, 2008 Posted February 13, 2008 ... anyone intentionally delaying a certification to game the system in this manner. Hold on here. To whom did Jim refer? Are we talking about plan sponsor (who "delays" sending census data to the actuary), trustee (who "delays" sending asset information to the actuary), the actuary? What is the authority for saying delay is not permitted? 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.
Guest KennyH Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 ... anyone intentionally delaying a certification to game the system in this manner. Hold on here. To whom did Jim refer? Are we talking about plan sponsor (who "delays" sending census data to the actuary), trustee (who "delays" sending asset information to the actuary), the actuary? What is the authority for saying delay is not permitted? don't really remember any specifics.
Guest KennyH Posted February 14, 2008 Posted February 14, 2008 Unfortunately I did not actually take any notes on this topic, however, here are some of the relevant bullet points on a couple of the presentation slides. Maybe this will jog someone's memory about the details (although I don't think there were many to begin with). A CD-ROM of the webcast can be purchased from the SOA (http://www.soa.org/news-and-publications/p...pub-cd-rom.aspx - look for "PPA–A Review of Recent Guidance Webcast") Under the Heading "Examinations" (from slides 55 & 57) - Consider whether there are deliberate delays to favor or disfavor participants - Will need to look for timely documentation - On exam, the questions may well turn out to be those of when, how, who, and what followed - It may turn out to be the case, that the application of benefit restricitions presents fiduciary concerns as well
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now