PensionNewbee

I only wish he'd stuck a staff in the water and declared it from the mountaintops. I do love good drama. Actually, the partners decided at a meeting that all participants should be 100% vested (so say the meeting minutes) however, no other formal action was taken. No amendment to the plan, no communication to employees. The "old" vesting schedule is 2/20. There is nothing in the document, as apparently, an amendment was to be done to reflect the partners wishes. However, as I stated, nothing was done. So, are the participants fully vested?

a client became a safe harbor plan effective 1/1/99. Didn't separate pre-safe harbor PS contributions, and declared all participants 100% vested. Now, the client is complaining that people who left prior to 1999 should not be 100% vested. If a terminated participant left an account balace in the plan, and the plan was amended to safe harbor status, and the amendment does not specifically mention the vesting schedule, are those participants 100% vested or not?

One of my clients told me all of his employees were hired by a HR company, and he now leases them, as of 6/1/2002. These employees are still in the same job, still in the same place, so they are not considered terminated for distribution purposes, right? If my client decides to make a contribution to the profit sharing plan, will he have to include his "former" employees?

I have a client with a profit sharing plan with no active participants. All are vested terminated and the plan is going to be terminated this year. What testing applies for a plan in this situation? Coverage? Top heavy? The last of the active participants terminated over two years ago.

Small company, 1 owner (100%) 4 employees. The 4 employees are excluded because they do not meet the age/service requirements. Can this plan file a 5500-EZ? Is this plan subject to ERISA's fiduciary bond requirements? Thanks!

How do I add these in Relius? through a DER or through a transaction? I allocated the 2002 TH contribution through a transaction, now I need to add the 2001 and 2000 TH contributions. What's the best way to do this?

I've sent several SS-$ applications to the IRS for Trust ID numbers, and one was kicked back asking for the SSN of the trustee. Is that required?

it's a PEO trying to decide whether to become a multiple employer plan. It required an audit last year. Rats.

I have a client that is a multiple employer plan. How is the ERISA audit requirement imposed on this kind of plan? By individual participating employer or by the whole plan?

RATS. Even if the companies are not related at all, but for the fact that they participate in a master trust?

how is a multiple employer plan audited for ERISA purposes? Is it audited by participating employer over 100 or is it audite based on the total number of participants regardless of employer?

I've given up on the portrait style statement for the time being. What I am trying to do now is add a division sort to an existing portrait report, CVERTP1. There is a sorted report in Landscape mode, but it would take too long to make that a portrait report. I also think there should be a portrait version of the summary of accounts by division. Think Relius will create these or am I on my own?

D'uh. It never occured to me to do an IMPORT of a negative transfer amount. I set up a DER and created a big huge mess before I got it straightened out. sigh. Live and learn, and learn, and learn...

sorry, Tom - I don't know enough about the report to help you with the error message. Does it make a difference that I am on version 8?

A participant in a SIMPLE IRA wants to make a traditional IRA contribution, and take the deduction. Is this possible? Is a SIMPLE IRA considered a qualified plan for this purpose?

I can't figure out why this report won't show Employee contributions

Man, if I'd only known what I was getting into ... just kidding. But seriously...my boss wants me to create a portrait statement with three sources - match, deferral and profit sharing. I haven't a CLUE as to how to go about this. Any suggestions? Classes? On-line tutoring? :confused:

You're right about that, AndyH - this isn't for newbees. I have to walk before I can run - it's a pretty vanilla design as cross testing goes. Lucky for me that's pretty much what the client wants. I do need to learn more about cross testing and restructuring - any suggestions?

Dad is 60, sons are 29 and 23. Plan passes all testing with 20% to owner, 3% to other HCEs and 5% to all other EEs. It seems like a pretty common design, from what I've seen and read. I'm not being thrown to the wolves, it was a momentary thing.

nothing like being thrown to the sharks, huh? The document design will be based on how the testing comes out - this is for 2003 (obviously) So, I have to give the father and sons the same % of contribution because of attribution? I mean, if I maximize dad at 20%, the sons get 20% also? So I would have the following classes: Owner - 20% Children of Owner - 20% Other HCE -3% All Other Employees - 5% Is that about the size of it?

A father owns 100% of the company. His two sons also work for the company. Does attribution apply to both children or just one? Can I create an Owner class for the father and an Other Highly Compensated category for the sons? Are the sons required to get the same % contribution as the father? What testing is done and how is it passed in this situation? And if there are other non-family highly compensated employees, can I put them in a separate class and have an "all other employees" class as well? I'm feeling a bit over my head at the moment.

my understanding is that "of counsel" means different things in different law firms. It does mean that the person is not an associate, and not a partner, but beyond that, it depends on the law firm. USUALLY it means the person is an independent contractor, but not always.

that's an excellent suggestion, Archimage - thanks!

that makes sense. I'll give it a shot and see what happens!

the PS contribution was made on 3/11/2003. in the TH/ADP ACP data screen, I can just change the date to exclude that contribution and rerun the test rather than reposting the contribution, is that what you're saying Tom? Sounds like an easy thing... as I said before - so much to learn!!!