DB Plan subject to Title IV is terminating. Shortly before the termination date, the employer contributed way more than the amount ultimately needed to purchase the necessary annuities and pay lump sums (either high 6 figures or very low 7 figures). Can Rev. Proc. 90-49 be used in this situation to secure a disallowance of the deduction? 90-49 seems to be limited to a situation where the plan sponsor had made excess quarterly contributions towards minimum funding. Am I reading it too narrowly?

[Advert.]

Join ftwilliam.com and industry experts for an insightful day covering ERISA, Compliance Testing & Reporting, Distributions, Ethics and more -- and secure CE, ERPA, and ethics credits. August 2nd in California, Sept. 6th in Washington D.C. Learn More!

Have a takeover plan where the actuarial equivalency definition specifies no pre-retirement mortality (AMT post) and 5% interest but the lump sum section specifies that the lump sum is the greater of that or the result using the 417(e) interest and mortality. This has been interpreted that the first calc uses no pre-retirement mortality but the 417(e) calc does. This is a fairly new plan so there is no 417(e) transitional 411(d)(6) cutback issue involved. Is this OK?

• Plan is a 'definite' 3% safe harbor annually.
• HCEs are excluded from receiving the safe harbor contribution.
• Plan is 89% top heavy
• Compensation is recognized from date of participation
• Plan is allocating 3% safe harbor to NHCEs
• Plan is allocating 3% profit sharing to HCEs

Question: I have one 'mid-year' entrant so the safe harbor is given on participation wages. Since the plan is also allocating 3% profit sharing to the HCE's, what am I required to give the mid-entrant? Just the 3% safe harbor on participation wages, or 3% safe harbor on participation wages + 3% profit sharing on wages earned before plan entry (i.e. total of 3% contribution on full years wages?