Mike Preston

Mods
 View profile
  • Content count

    4,621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 See their activity

Mike Preston last won the day on March 23

Mike Preston had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

201 Excellent

About Mike Preston

  • Rank
    Registered User

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.asppa.org/Main-Menu/Leadership/ACOPA.aspx
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Orland, CA
  • Interests
    Enrolled actuary. Previously sysop of PIX BBS (now defunct). Pension generalist. A little expert testimony thrown in.

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. You don't count people twice. 410(b) is easy: 17/17 / 2/2 = 100%. For plan purposes you use compensation defined in the plan. For a4 purposes you use a 414(s) definition of comp.
  2. The provisions dealing with Davis-Bacon contributions are extremely broad. I would be surprised (but not shocked) to learn that they couldn't be used to fund a match.
  3. The plan administrator's fiduciary responsibilities extend to any interpretation it makes. At the least, they are inviting a law suit from the disenfranchised. They need (independent) ERISA counsel.
  4. You don't count people twice. You test for reasonableness only if you are testing whether the definition of compensation satisfies 414(s). You use any 414(s) definition of compensation to satisfy a4.
  5. If you think any have EVER been filed, get a 2848 signed by the client and call the IRS to ask them if they have record of any EVER having been filed. It may take a while on hold and then you will be asked to fax the 2848 while on the phone, but they are very helpful.
  6. It can make a huge difference. And besides, no, you've got the whole universe of community interest on its heels with your assertion that monies have to come into the participant's hands before being a part of the community. Did you really mean that?
  7. I think you will find that what you think doesn't seem right is in fact very right. I believe the most widely known example is the OJ case. As I understand it, the Goldman's have had no luck getting their hands on OJ's pension assets. I wonder if they attempted a retroactive QDRO? That would have been an interesting court decision.
  8. Unlikely to ever become an issue at 4.402%. Won't round to an additional dollar unless comp exceed $96,955.59.
  9. And just for fun, note that if you are really giving 4.4000000000000000% as a gateway you will fail gateway if it is based on 1/3 * ($35,000/$265,000) = 4.4025157%. There are some that use rounding techniques that make it appear that it will pass, but for sake of an additional $1 or 2 why take that chance?
  10. And if the document is not determinative, then the Plan Administrator has to interpret the provisions accordingly, paying attention to the fiduciary duty to administer the plan properly under ERISA.
  11. I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You think the regulation doesn't specifically reference plan year. I think the language used makes sense only if it most assuredly does. You think that anecdotal evidence of individually designed plans that have ignored the regulation's clear intent and nonetheless received determination letters constitutes some sort of precedent. I don't. I think that clients administering plans in accordance with your interpretation should be warned that their participants have potential ERISA claims against the plan. I gather you don't. Fair enough.
  12. I believe you use full fiscal year comp. Obviously, when plan and fiscal year are the same then it matters not.