austin3515

I always thought the answer was no. Perhaps what Kirk is thinking is if you sent an email to everyone with the a link to the SMM? Electronic delivery is acceptable if certain requirements are met, one of which I believe is that it must be offered in paper if requested (this is the rule for safe harbor notices, which I think was meant to be consistent with the DOL?)

1) Yes, you still need to issue an SMM, but you would qualify it by saying something to the affect of "contingent upon approval by the IRS." 2) Yes you can post-it. BUT, that won't satisfy your obligation to distribute the SMM. It must be delivered to all participants. You may want to post what the amendment actually was, as this may change my answer?

No. I love the easy ones!

I'm not sure I'd use the term "retroactively" cause that implies that previous distributions would need to be adjusted (although I'm sure that's not what you had in mind). But yes, you can certainly provide full vesting for existing balances.

"Compensation" 98-52 references 1.414(s)-1, and that site seems to incorporate both the safe harbor definitions and anything that passes the ratio test. See "permissable compensation" section of this article. http://www.mellon.com/hris/fyi/fyi_02_02_99a.html Anyone else care to settle this? Or do you agree Wmyer?

That's where it was! Thanks! I remember the camera from Circuit City...

I saw an article once discussing giveaways to encourae enrollemnt. Is it allowed, etc.? I recall the answer is yes, but if someone knows where I read this that would be awesome! I think it came out in the benefitslink daily email.

I would like to point out that this was supposed to be a "quick eligibility question." I find that amusing given the lack of agreement on the most basic of retirement plan questions...

I think use of the word "coincident with" makes the intentions clear enough though, doesn't it? The month of service is completed at 11:59.99999, which is still 2/1 which is coincident with an entry date. The month certainly isn't completed the next day? Would it be wise to kick a participant out of the plan based on a nanosecond?

Or is the question that the parent is terminated and a more than 5% owner, so does that make the child a former key, even though the child is still employed? The question could go either way... The answer is that child is a key employee because through attribution, he owns more than 5% of the company. The employment status of the direct owner is irrelevant.

I agree with Blinky. See what you've started? Now do you understand? The purpose of these boards is whatever we want it to be!! Leave your message board dictatorship political ideals at the door thank you...

I think it's relevant to note that issue ended up in court, which most sponsors should try to avoid! But for what it's worth I agree...

Tom - Off hand, do you know which box gets which result? I'm assuming Inclusive means 5/1 and exclusive means 6/1?

Presumably your document provides for an annual allocation, so on the one hand, you could argue that the final allocation couldn't possibly have been determined. If the doc. provides for quarterly allocations than you're sol... But on the otherhand, you could argue that there would be a prohibitted cut-back because you allocated the contribution as of an interim date. I think the argument for the former is strongest, but that doesn't mean a disgruntled employee couldn't take the latter position. for what it's worth, interim contriubtions on annual formulas should be outlawed. No good can come from them...

My only point is that if you design the plans solely to avoid the audit requirement that you might upset the DOL. Let's say you had one plan with 130 people, and then you break the Plan into 2 plans for no good reason. Wouldn't that raise some red flags? I wouldn't do it, that's all. No regs to cite, because there are none.

As long as the assets are not commingled you should be okay. I'd issue a strong caveat that there better be a legitimate business reason for separate plans (i.e, two different companies/divisions). You don't want it to look like the point of the arrangement is to avoid an audit. I don't think that's a good way to make friends with the DOL. What's more, I'm not sure you'd save much money considering the cost of admistering two plans is probaly close to double the cost to administering one plan for everyone...

Daggonit! But I have to say, you hope for answers like yours (i.e., a perfect site, not just the page but WHERE on the page. The technical equivalent to a GPS!).

ADP/ACP is tested separately for union and nonunion.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...t=0entry50929 Found an old post on this.

Can you provide that a deemed distriubtion to a zero percent vested participant will occur when employer sources are 0% vested? I.e., allow a forfeiture even if there is a 401(k) balance allocated to the participant.

Amen to that brother! If it's that or bankruptcy, perhaps the answer is scriveners error...

What? Please expand...

If we're talking about a ridiculous amount of money, I'd consider a scriveners error approach. If the Plan never gets audited, it will likely never have to be defended. IF it does get audited, the correction would likely be far worse if the IRS quashes the scriveners error, then if you corrected it now. I guess your case would be helped by another attoorney concluding that there was a scriveners error. I guess it depends on the sponsors risk tolerance...

A restatement is a giant amendment. I say it's an amendment. I guess a rule of thumb is, all you can ever do to an existing plan is amend it... That's my vote anyway.

How bout the one specified by your Plan Document. It should be in there...