JAY21 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 I believe we've discussed that a new plan effective say 1/1/08 can be treated for funding purposes as if 1/10th of the 415 limit was available (allowed) on the first day of the plan year (1/1/08). Is this a special rule just for the first plan year only ? or for the second year (2009) for funding purposes could you treat it as if you had 2/10ths of the dollar limit on 1/1/2009 ?
ak2ary Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 The 415 dollar limit phases in over the first 10 years of participation but is never less than 1/10th of the full dollar limit. But it is no help in year 2
david rigby Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Correct. See IRC 415(b)(5), and don't forget to read subparagraph ©: http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-D-I-B-415.html 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.
Andy the Actuary Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Won't this work if the plan credits a year of participation for performance of one-hour of service and the participant gets up early? 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.
JAY21 Posted June 20, 2008 Author Posted June 20, 2008 Since the special 415 rule is no help in 2nd year (2009) then I guess the strategy of using past service credit for a new 2008 plan in order to create/fund full target liability cushion of 50% is a help in 1st year of plan (2008), but second year of plan since your past service liability at 1/1/09 is still just 1/10th of 415 YOP you have created a shortfall gain in year 2 for minimum funding (since you already funded 150% of target liability in 1st year) which partially offsets your normal cost for minimum funding in 2009, so your maximum 2009 is probably just roughly equal to normal cost since 150% of target liability (1/10th of dollar limit) has not changed since prior year and was already funded in 1st year Ignoring at-risk assumptions impact on max contribution for the moment, does this sound right ? Corrections ?
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