Talk:Pension Protection Act of 2006

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

PPA affecting other areas of the law

Hello, I'm drafting an article on supporting organizations. Supporting organizations are a creature of the Internal Revenue Code. The Pension Protection Act amended the IRC to change the treatment of supporting organizations. Mind if I add some small reference to the PPA's effect on charitable organizations, particularly supporting organizations? This should be something no more than indicating that the PPA dealt with charitable organizations and sought to curb donor abuse. EECavazos 15:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so long as you can provide sources to back up your claims, it should make for an interesting read. I see you've done well adding sources to Supporting organization (charity), so I doubt that'll be a problem. Be bold! - auburnpilot talk 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the section. However, I left room for the impact that the PPA made on donor-advised funds and private foundations. For that reason I put the supporting organization subsection in the bold type form. This way the other subsections on donor-advised funds and private foundations may go in. Is this the proper approach? Leaving room for further sections. I'm new and don't want to make mistakes or step on toes.EECavazos 23:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Edits

I think a couple edits could be useful on this. First, saying that PPA "requires companies to more accurately analyze their pension plans' obligations" is a bit political and biased. It changed the measurement from a long-term funding calculation to a plan termination calculation. Both forms are perfectly accurate, its just that they measure very different things. I might call it a more conservative calculation method, but certainly not more accurate.

Also, saying that it "closes loopholes that previously allowed some companies to underfund their plans by skipping payments" is also potentially misleading. I assume the loophole mentioned is the Credit Balance. A, the credit balance is not going away (it is just being limited in its uses), B, I think its misleading calling it a loophole. The way plans were using credit balances to avoid plan contributions was exactly as the law was written and intended. The problem was, it was just bad law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esteban Tuttle (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to PPA disambiguation page

This should really be added to the PPA disambiguation page, as it's a very common abbreviation in the business world. Unfortunatley I have no idea how to do this. 38.109.75.179 (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]