WDIK

Missed opportunity for deferrals, perhaps?

April Fool!

R..i..g..h..t.

We just saw our first one yesterday. What a joy it will be to collect these from all of our clients to be attached to the filing.

1) Are there other plan participants in addition to the five in question? 2) When were the contributions deposited into the trust?

Only as a last resort.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38349

Well, the link is over three years old. If memory serves (an unlikely occurrence these days), the book was The Multiemployer 401(k) Defined Contribution Plan Guide by Larry Bushmaker et al. Try this link.

Best wishes to all you math fans on this "square root" day. We won't celebrate another for over seven years.

Does the hypothetical situation take into account the non-hypothetical coverage requirements?

IRC Section 410(a)(4) (4) Time of participation A plan shall be treated as not meeting the requirements of paragraph (1) unless it provides that any employee who has satisfied the minimum age and service requirements specified in such paragraph, and who is otherwise entitled to participate in the plan, commences participation in the plan no later than the earlier of— (A) the first day of the first plan year beginning after the date on which such employee satisfied such requirements, or (B) the date 6 months after the date on which he satisfied such requirements, unless such employee was separated from the service before the date referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B), whichever is applicable.

If the document is unamended, will it inaccurately reflect information about the sponsor?

No.

Perhaps a partial termination has ocurred? In your twist, the document would certainly need to be amended to reflect the correct sponsor.

I don't have any great suggestions, but this does give me an opportunity to share (whine about) my most recent "debate" with a participant's investment advisor. According to him, he has been in the business for over 14 years and in all that time has never encountered a plan with a break-in-service requirement. He is sure that this is illegal, that our firm is incompetent and dishonest, and that I am part of a corporate conspiracy. He is also pretty sure that the DOL requires employers to guarantee that there will be no investment losses (which were substantial in 2008) in a balance-forward plan. After enduring a glut of insults, I told him that it would be necessary for me to speak directly with the participant to answer additional questions. When I did speak with the participant, he told me that he had not been working with this broker ever since the broker showed up unannounced at his house one night at 9:30pm and triumphantly declared, "I thought this was where you lived!"

Never mind.

Others may have a better memory (or better notes), but I seem to recall that Mr. Holland's "opinion" on this subject was "these are things that need to be addressed."

I stand corrected.

I forwarded numbers 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 17, 20 and 22 to a bunch of my friends. I was sure they would make my friends laugh, but no pun in ten did.

The participant has completed the eligibility requirements that were applicable and enters the plan on January 1, in my opinion. Is the vesting schedule change prospective only, or was the amendment drafted so that it would apply to all benefits?

The rate of return and tax rate were merely conservative assumptions for purposes of the illustration. I also hope that your rate or return is better than in the illustration. It is also possible that you will be in a higher tax bracket. In either case, the differential increases even more in favor of the higher salary.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40926

BasicAnalysis.pdf

The silence is deafening. I suppose it was too much to ask for at this point.