WDIK

I think a quick analysis can show that if you take the difference between the highly compensated salary and the non-highly compensated salary and place it in savings, you will generally end up having more disposable income at retirement by staying at the higher wage, even adjusting for the pre-tax/post-tax factor.

Is anyone familiar with (or is there even anything currently available) a good resource that gives a detailed or step by step analysis of PPA actuarial valuations and the transition from prior methodology?

Now I don't know if I can take any of your posts seriously.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=203200,00.html

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40978

Please share the points of your internal debate.

Place it in a file somewhere, but otherwise ignore it.

A certain man loved his wife very much. He wanted this Valentine's day to be special, So he had ordered a bottle of her favorite liquor imported from France and it had arrived in time for the occasion. On his way home, he stopped at the local florist. He had planned to have a bouquet made with her favorite flower, white anemones. But to his dismay, he found that the florist had sold all her flowers and had only a few sterns of feathery ferns left for decoration. In a moment of inspiration, he had the answer. He asked the florist to make a bouquet using the flask of liquor instead of flowers and what she produced was magnificent well beyond his expectations. He added a card, and proceeded home. When he arrived, his wife was beautiful in her most elegant gown, and it was apparent that she had spent much of the day preparing a romantic candlelight dinner for the two of them. He presented her with his gift, and she opened the card to read, "Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder." With a tear in her eye, she whispered to him lovingly, "Yes, and with fronds like these, who needs anemones."

Refer to Section 1.3 of IRS Publication 1179. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1179.pdf

I wish I could remember more exactly Jim Holland's comments at the Los Angeles Benefits Conference regarding instructions for the SB. The impression that I got was that he was not happy about the instructions that were issued, but that there had to be some compromising done to be able to issue something and that there might be some additional clarification offered by IRS.

Not to put words in Bird's mouth, but I think the point is that there is not yet language in plan documents that reflect the RMD suspension under WRERA. Based on comments at the Los Angeles Benefits Conference, it appears that there is still uncertainty about how this suspension can and should be applied in many circumstances.

Do the participants have the ability to choose between directing their investments themselves or having their accounts placed in pooled trustee-directed investments?

I don't know about congress, but at the Los Angeles Benefits Conference, the IRS indicated the need to provide clarification on the asset smoothing rules.

I can also confirm such a discussion.

http://www.benefitscounsel.com/archives/001981.html

What other option do you propose that would not be just as silly?

You indicate that the dollar limit for HCE's ($8,500) is not in the plan document. Is there language in the plan that has allowed an administrative limit to be set in order to pass ADP?

Our firm offers that service to those clients who so desire, but from my perspective, it is one of the least enjoyable.

The plan should be amended to indicate the new sponsor and identification number. Then follow Lori's earlier suggestion with respect to the Form 5500-EZ.

Perhaps there is confusion with respect to the type of money, or perhaps there is just confusion in general.

From page 4 of the 1099-R instructions: For a direct rollover of an eligible rollover distribution to a Roth IRA (other than from a designated Roth account), report the total amount rolled over in box 1, the taxable amount in box 2a, and any basis recovery amount in box 5. (See the instructions for box 5 on page 9.) Use Code G in box 7.

I believe that this is a document related provision.

Just for fun, take this trip down memory lane. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31870

In my opinion, definitely participant directed plans. (Not even de facto, but actual.)

I think we can surmise that the daughter is a lineal descendant of a party-in-interest.