RP 2000-40 - VALID OR OBSOLETE

[AndyH]

Did PPA in some way invalidate this procedure? My specific question is whether a new 2007 DB plan that has a 12/31/2007 val date can change to BOY 1/1/2008 and be subject to automatic approval under 2000-40.

Any help would be appeciated.

[david rigby]

The Rev. Proc. is not automatically repealed by PPA, but certain parts of it are overridden (such as the ability to adopt the aggregate method); that does not invalidate the RP. IMHO, Approval 13 is still valid.

Is there some reason or conflict that you think would interfere with this?

[JAY21]

Just remember the recent IRS Notice that provided temporary relief for EOY vals for AFTAP purposes (can use 12/31/06 valuation for 2007 AFTAP) appears to lock you into continuing the use of EOY valuations for the 2008 year if you choose to use the optional relief (have to use an EOY val for 12/31/06, 12/31/07, & 12/31/08). That has nothing to do with Rev. Proc. 2000-40, which I agree we should be able to still use still relevant parts, but it does make you at least consider what you are going to do with your 2008 valuation date IF you're contemplating using the temporary EOY val relief for 2007 AFTAP purposes.

[AndyH]

The Rev. Proc. is not automatically repealed by PPA, but certain parts of it are overridden (such as the ability to adopt the aggregate method); that does not invalidate the RP. IMHO, Approval 13 is still valid.

Is there some reason or conflict that you think would interfere with this?

No, I share your view; I have a colleague who is not so sure that PPA did not somehow nullify it.

[AndyH]

Does anyone know an IRS phone number that I confirm this by calling? My opinion is now the minority in my office. Proving a negative is not easy.

[Andy the Actuary]

The Rev. Proc. is not automatically repealed by PPA, but certain parts of it are overridden (such as the ability to adopt the aggregate method); that does not invalidate the RP. IMHO, Approval 13 is still valid.

Is there some reason or conflict that you think would interfere with this?

Mr. R's point leads to an interesting question: Given that now there is one and only one bonafide cost method, is the enrolled actuary still bound by the take-over provisions of 2000-40? I.e., is the actuary required to reproduce the prior year's results? What happens if you can't? In the past, I've usually been able to reproduce the prior actuary's results to a reasonable degree or explain why I can't. With the computational complexities introduced by PPA, I'm unsure how I would explain why I can't.

[Effen]

Given that now there is one and only one bonafide cost method

Not that this addresses Andy's (the actuary) point, but all of the other cost methods are still in use in the multiemployer world. Only single employer plans are forced to use the new PPA method.

I think this also helps AndyH (the non-actuary?) justify his position that 00-40 is still active. There are still lots of plans using other funding methods.

[AndyH]

Well, I found the answer to my specific question with some help from D.C., but it does not directly address the status of 2000-40. PPA defaults the val date to the BOY (430)(g)(2)(A). A small plan can elect something else but the default is still BOY.

So we can run a 12/31/2007 val for a new plan and turn around and use that data for a 1/1/2008 val and AFTAP.