Description: Actuary/accountant/tax attorney dialogue on recent guidance issued regarding treatment of deficiency reserves with respect to the “statutory reserves cap” of Internal Revenue Code section 807(d)(1).

Description: Read the June 2016 issue of Taxing Times.

Description: A resource for actuarial professionals, providing a systematic approach to the application of actuarial theory to real world problems. Provides insight into how to manage financial risk within dynamic economic and social systems. It is also a required text for use in the Fundamentals of Actuarial Practice course.

Description: Provide high level summary of predictive modelling.

Description: Panelists discuss trends for the group short-term disability STD industry, as well as issues of timely relevance to group STD actuaries. From the Record of the Society of Actuaries, Vol. 24, No. 2.

Description: This article discusses adjusting IRC 415 limits for prior distributions. The proposed IRC 415 regulations issued last May contained guidance regarding how to adjust the benefit limits for prior distributions. This is commendable on the part of the IRS. How to adjust the IRC 415 limits for prior distributions has long been a source of confusion even for experienced pension actuaries. The best methodology is not immediately clear, and some methods have become common practice even if they can lead to inconsistent or unreasonable results. From Pension Section News, January 2006, No. 60.

Description: The United States district court for the Southern District of Ohio recently issued its opinion in American Financial Group and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. United States. The issue in the case as framed by the Internal Revenue Service IRS was whether Actuarial Guideline XXXIII AG 33 applies retroactively or prospectively to the calculation of reserves for deferred annuity contracts. This article is a discussion of this opinion.

Description: This paper examines the so called 1/n investment puzzle which has been observed in defined contribution plans whereby some participants divide their contributions equally among the available asset classes. It has been argued that this is a very naive strategy since it contradicts the fundamental tenets of modern portfolio theory. We use simple arguments to show that this behavior is perhaps less naive than it at first appears. We show that when we account for estimation error the 1/n rule has some advantages in terms of robustness and we demonstrate this with numerical experiments. From The Actuarial Research Council, Volume 38, No. 1.