Guest Jhagan Posted June 14, 1999 Share Posted June 14, 1999 Is it necessary to include the definition of Highly Compensated Employee in a 401(a) plan for LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY since they are exempt from the provisions that use this definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CVCalhoun Posted June 14, 1999 Share Posted June 14, 1999 I can't think of any reason this would be required. The only authority under which the definition of highly compensated employee is required is that most retirement plans are subject to the rules of Code §§ 401(a)(4) and 410(B). For those which are not, it is hard to see how the IRS would have any authority to require such a definition. ------------------- Employee benefits legal resource site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ralph Amadio Posted September 1, 1999 Share Posted September 1, 1999 My experience has been that the reviewers want it. Has anyone taken this issue above the reviewer level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted September 1, 1999 Share Posted September 1, 1999 my perspective is that having "extra" definitions in a document is not a bad thing. I see 2 advantages: 1. It helps you because it keeps most of your documents similar. 2. It helps the plan sponsor because it makes modifications easier when the inevitable law changes come along. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now