austin3515

No, but I don't think the DOL was as "maniacal" about it back then as they are today. I don't think there's any need to go back 10 years though (okay, technically there is, but in reality nobody ever would). I'd go back as far as they can audit, which should be 3 prior 5500's.

One important thing is that if you terminate the old plan, you wouldn't be able to start a new 401(k) plan for at least a year (assuming the old plan was a 401(k)).

There's no attribution of ownership between siblings, erego (sp?) no one is treated as owning any more than direct interest. There's obviously no parent-sub relationship here, so that leave brother-sister: Because there is only one common owner, the identical interest test comes out to 9% (i.e., the sole common owner's lowest interest in either of the two businesses), and it must be at least 50% for a controlled group to exist. So no controlled group. That is of course absent any highly unusual affilliated service group relationships. Assuming the business have no relationship at all (other than the fact that siblings own them), there's nothing to worry about there.

RJF - do you realize that the dollar limit for the lookback year your referencing is the 2004 thresshold? I'm not sure when it increased to $95,000. Because the look-back year ends 3/31/05, it began in 2004, and the limits apply plan years beginning in the applicable calendar year.

That was refreshing. Anyone who followed a similar topic last week knows exactly what I'm talking about...

Austin3515, I am not saying that you are stupid. You simply remind me of myself when I was inexperienced and stupid. There is nothing in what I wroted that came close to implying Sal Tripodi is wrong. We are merely discussing the meaning of a sentence. Let's leave the rhetoric aside from now a discuss the real issue. Some of us understand when the gateway rules apply and some of us don't. The fact this I understand the rules and you don't does not mean that I am thinking highly of myself; but instead means that I do not think highly of you. I am trying to teach you something that you have no interest in learning. All you want to do is attack with your weak interpretations of someone else's literature. You should grow beyond that. But, IF, IF, IF (let me emphasize again, IF) I mistakenly assumed you called me stupid in a prior post, surely you don't expect to me believe your last post doesn't? No response needed, nor desired...

ERISA Nut. You're not very nice. I also think you think a little too highly of yourself. I'm not stupid. Anyone who says Sal Tripodi is wrong, and that one shouldn't look to the regulaitons for answers is indeed a NUT. I think you should read the EOB paragraph that Preston attached and specifically indicate where in that concise clear as day paragraph Sal is mistaken.

Preston wins. Case closed. Can't argue with Sal. Could he have made it any more clear?

But the initial post already stipulated that he couldn't pass avg ben treating TH's as zero... So doesn't that then bring you into non-safe harbor status?

I think perhaps it applies because of the fact that we had to include the top heavy minimums to satisfy the average benefits test. Therefore, the safe harbor status is blown, and now 401(a)(4) testing is required. And if the rate group test fails the ratio %age test using allocation rates, then it must be X-Tested. And if any of the rate groups fail the ratio %age test (and pass NDC), then the average benefits test must be passed, most likely using X-Testing. This is how the gateway comes into play. For what it's worth, I just had a very expensive ERISA Attorney design a plan based on cross-testing the average benefits, with no need for the gateway. Part II - A Question of my Own LEt's say you can pass the rate group testing using allocation rates, EXCEPT that you don't pass the ratio percentage test based on allocation rates (but you do pass the NDC). So now you run the average benefits test, but need to use X-Testing. Does that require the gateway? I wonder... Very unlikely scenario, I know, but I think the answer would help clarify things...

Have a qualified profit sharing plan with life insurance. Plan is terminating and we want to provide participants with some information regarding the impact of a) taking a cash distribution equal to the cash surrender value; and b) taking a distribution of the actual life insurance policy, and continuing the premium payments outside the plan. Anyone have any good write-ups? We have the EOB's excellent section on the topic, but want something in plain english that can be distributed to participants. Anything you can share is appreciated!

Do you have access to the ERISA Outline Book? Sometimes the regulations are written in giberrish, so while it may seem like their saying one thing, they're really saying something unrelated. I think that's what's happening here. The EOB explains everything quite well, and I'm sure you'll find a section that talks about the fact that a safe harbor plan may exclude any class of employees it wants to, provided coverage is passed.

I'd say you're SOL. From the gist of your post, it was the profit sharing allocation method that survived, and as such that's the method you're stuck with (of course, as has already been mentioned, the document has the answer). Assuming you have a last day rule, you could change for 2006.

in lieu of all OR A PORTION of the pre-tax elective contributions the employee is otherwise eligible to make under the plan. Where's the ambiguity? That's super aggressive to interpret that to mean all or none, IMHO...

Make a contribution to the NHCE's equal to the refund ("one-to-one QNEC"). Should be a QNEC. See EPCRS as outlined in Rev Proc. 2003-44, unless there is a newer one (but I don' t think there is?).

When calculating earned income, it is necessary to allocate forfeitures between the employees and the owners. How is this done? Pro-rata based on the contributions allocated to employees? Profit Sharing only, or would you include all employer contributions (i.e., including safe harbor)? Is there any published guidance on this?

That was awesome.

But of course if the only money is SH match, rollover and 401(k), there shouldn't be any forfeitures!!

Kirk, I agree with Locust - that was one Plan, and the audit requirement for a single Plan is always there if there are more than 100 participants. If there is a requirement to aggregate participant counts under multiple plans, I have never seen it in the instructions to the 5500 (but for the commingled asset pools); I would find it odd that such a requirement exists and is not covered in the instructions. What are your thoughts? You are distinguished poster on these boards, so I'd love to hear your response!!

We're a typical TPA firm, no daily trading. We do almost all of our work on a plan year-end. I'd REALLY love to know the actual price - anyone know?

Thanks Bos - I try to explain the inefficiencies created, to no avail. Any other users out there?

Does anyone know how much a Relius Administration license costs per user (defined contribution)? Also, I'm wondering if other firms experience limitations on access to Relius, as employees. For example, we have a schedule, where we can only be on the system (without "squatting") at 3 intervals of 80 minutes. I'm trying to talk my boss into more licenses, so I'm curious to see if we're behind others or equivalent to others (I hope we're not ahead!).

A sponsor (Company ABC) has two plans ("Company ABC ESOP" and "Company ABC Profit Sharing"), both with 1099-R's and federal withholding. All reporting is done on Company ABC's EIN--the Plan's have no EIN of their own. Should one set of 1099's with the Company ABC's name AND EIN be issued? (as opposed to using the Plan names on two separate batches) Should one 945 with Company ABC's name and EIN be filed (as opposed to the respective Plan name)? In other words, does the Plan name show up anywhere on the 1099's or 945?

Are you saying rFriday is a pay day? If not, I'm not sure you do have compensation (i.e., if defintiion of comp is W-2 wages?

Does anyone have any compensation in the Plan Year?