John A Posted December 14, 1999 Posted December 14, 1999 Seems like a slam dunk to me. Was a Rev. Rul. really necessary?
david rigby Posted December 14, 1999 Posted December 14, 1999 I just read Rev. Rul 99-51. Am I missing something or is this a slam dunk? Did someone think they could get away with this blatant violation of the nondiscrimination rules, both in letter and spirit? [This message has been edited by Dave Baker (edited 12-14-1999).] 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.
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