WRERA Amendment

[Dougsbpc]

Does anyone know if a small DB plan that terminated December 31, 2008 needs to be amended for WRERA?

[david rigby]

Since WRERA changed PPA06 back to the latter's orginal effective date, it would seem that any 2008 plan year is affected. What particular section of WRERA is your focus?

[Dougsbpc]

What it really comes down to is that we administer a 1 participant DB that terminated 12/31/2008. We usually get a DL on termination but in this case the plan sponsor does not want to get a DL. Usually we would insist on it but this has been a very straight forward plan that has been properly amended all along.

It seems that WRERA only provides relief. Would a plan be considered non-compliant by not adopting a WRERA amendment when in operation it never employed any of that relief? What about a plan that terminated earlier in 2008?

[david rigby]

What is a "WRERA amendment"? Covers what provisions?

[Dougsbpc]

Thanks for the replies David.

I guess my question is would a 1 participant DB plan be considered non-compliant (and disqualified) if it terminated December 31, 2008 without formally adopting any language to comply with WRERA? I think WRERA was signed into law in late December.

[david rigby]

I haven't parsed the language, but there could be an inconsistency without an amendment. (Note that "inconsistency" is not the same as "wrong".) For example, PPA06 included language that requires plan modification in certain circumstances (such as the automatic freeze if a funding level drops below a certain level). Somewhere in the future, every plan must be amended to incorporate that concept, but we don't know yet how to do it. Thus, your plan may have that deficiency.

However, it is difficult to see how a terminated one-person plan could suffer any harm by not having the language. In 2010, when the IRS provides some guidance (ha ha), it seems unlikely they will require modification for plans that no longer exist.

But, what do I know. Discuss with your ERISA attorney?

[SoCalActuary]

I haven't parsed the language, but there could be an inconsistency without an amendment. (Note that "inconsistency" is not the same as "wrong".) For example, PPA06 included language that requires plan modification in certain circumstances (such as the automatic freeze if a funding level drops below a certain level). Somewhere in the future, every plan must be amended to incorporate that concept, but we don't know yet how to do it. Thus, your plan may have that deficiency.

However, it is difficult to see how a terminated one-person plan could suffer any harm by not having the language. In 2010, when the IRS provides some guidance (ha ha), it seems unlikely they will require modification for plans that no longer exist.

But, what do I know. Discuss with your ERISA attorney?

Also note that some of the document vendors will be coming out with sample good-faith language soon. Consult with your vendor for timing.