jquazza

For all it's worth, the 5500 Preparer's Manual says t use the BOY value.

I think you make it more complicated that it needs to be: -I agree with WDIK as far as reporting the distribution to match the 1099-R. Assuming you corrected the 1099-R, if you file on accrual basis, it should be part of your assets as a receivable (you don't need to segregate the receivables on schedule I, I wouldn't put them under negative liabilities.) If you file on cash basis, book it as other income in 04 (and in 03 as well as a loss since your income and expenses won't balance since you didn't count the item in your distribution.)

rcline46, I don't follow your argument. You say it is impossible to SH match catch ups and then you said you will have to make the match on those catch ups?

Where did you come up with the idea that the entire match must be tested if the plan matches catch up contributions? I don't believe that to be true. So if you match the catch ups, you don't have any issues, do you?

There no max but these rules have "sunset provisions" and are due to expire I believe by 2010 (of course they might be made permanent or extended by then.)

but he signed the document anyway... You may make a case for a scrivener's error, but I would definitively not use that if they already filed for an FDL. See what Reish Luftman has to say about these... http://www.reish.com/practice_areas/Techni...s/IRStip117.cfm Reish Luftman Technical Tip #117

1- they'd better get the 01 test results. 2- you might be too late to self-correct w/o the service approval, and the service will definitely want to see the 01 test before approving the method of correction.

Without a clear definition of owner-employee in the doc, that provision would be subject to the plan administrator's interpretation. It might be advisable to define that term in the doc (e.g. owner-employee is a direct owner of x% of the outstanding stock etc...)

Are the brokerage accounts registered in the name of the master trust, if yes, then they are part of it.

I thought a zillion was a little excessive...

Tom, I agree with you in most cases, however, you still have to pay close attention to it, especially if the ER Nonelective is not that much: example: 3% SHNEC Onwer wants 10% NEC total (addt'l 7% PS) Gateway for other EEs: .34% You can't use .65 for your maximum disparity.

QDROphile, is that a disservice to the employee/participant or the employee's ex-spouse?

M. Martin, I believe you're right, it appears there is a flaw in the Corbel doc that the IRS didn't catch when they approved it. The Former keys EEs are excluded from the TH ratio in Section 9.2 of the document. For allocation purposes, the document refers to non-ney ees which is defined as you described in your prior post. Please, let us know what C. Hoffman has to say about that. The other SunGard doc (PPD) doesn't exclude the former keys from the non-key EEs definition.

I am not sure I follow all of you. Apparently, the participant died before the annuity starting date, as he never submitted the forms, so now, the benefits should be paid as a QPSA to the bene, which should entitle her to full benefits, not 50% of a QJSA that never was started.

I agree with QDROphile. There should be nothing in a QDRO left to your interpretation (keep in mind that your interpretretation will affect someone positively and the other party negatively, so you are doomed to tick off someone.) Let the plan administrator make that determination or have it sent back to the attorneys for clarification.

M. Martin, read your document again, I wouldn't be surprised if that definition of non-key employee is strictly used for the purpose of the TH ratio. For the TH minimum contribution, the plan might say something like any eligible participant who is not a key employee is entitled to a TH minimum, which would be different than a non-key. Anyway, that's my guess, read your document again, otherwise, I agree with Blinky, your document should be changed.

Blinky, I am surprised by your comment. Very little impact doesn't mean no impact, and if you're calculating your contribution to the penny to make it pass (a)(4) and inputted permitted disparity on the SHNEC, suddely you fail nondiscrimation, is this what you call little impact? I agree it has little impact on the contribution amount, but it is still something we should be aware of when testing. And by the way, you don't even have to use cross testing for this rule to apply, so when testing on contribution basis, the impact is definitively not minimal.

I think the problem is that the sposnor doesn't have any control over the individual contracts.

Belgarath, the day they add a section on quantum physics on this forum, I will answer your problem, until then, I can only tell you that at the speed of light, it's not that the fast traveler will not age, but rather he will age only a few seconds...

There's one more thing you have to pay attention to, if you input permitted disparity on your Xtest, you cannot input it on the SHNEC.

You might want to take a look at what Fidelity says about the closure. Usually, they do not close the funds to existing investors. They might have closed it to new investors, even if part of a business retirement plan and your plan provider decided to stop any purchases because they were not able to monitor this activity.

I think Bozek is correct, as long as the POA is valid and grants sufficient authority to the attorney-in-fact to execute the document in question, it is just as good as if the participant signed it.

Wouldn't you have an exception to this rule for employees who became partners during the year. They can actually receive a W-2 as an employee for the services performed while not a partner. In this case you can add the SE income & W-2 for plan purposes but don't apply the SE income rules (i.e. 1/2 SE tax etc..) to the W-2 income.

I thought one of the requirement for a SEP (at least if using the 5305-SEP) was that the employer could not maintain another QP?

Does the company provide other contributions (like a match.) If so, look into making the plan a Safe Harbor 401(k) using the match option. If it's the only ER contribution, the plan will be deemed not top heavy. And by the way, do you know that the plan will be top heavy for sure? If only one key employee makes the plan top heavy, it's probably a small company with a low participation rate amongst non-key employees, so providing a SH match should not be too expensive. If they are adamant about not providing benefits to their employees, a non-qualified plan will work.