WDIK

How many of the other 300 were deferring at the 15% plan limit level?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12202

The look-back year is the 12-month period immediately precdiding the determination year. There is no look-back year for the first year of an employer.

Is the doctor an employee of the hospital that sponsors the 403(b) plan?

Assuming the definition of compensation in the plan corresponds to W-2 wages for the spouse, I do not believe there would be any reduction because the self-employment tax does not apply.

As the saying goes, "You are preaching to the choir."

The former TPA could certainly recommend that the plan sponsor forward these amounts as plan fees to the new TPA.

They very well might, but, in my opinion, it is even more likely that they would get angry/annoyed at the possible results of their inaction. Sometimes I wonder.

Any changes from the approved prototype document language would make the plan individually designed.

JeffC: My perception is that you may be trying to overthink these questions and making them more difficult than they are intended. I would suggest that you follow SuePerry's recommendation that the answers are found in the text and try to avoid bringing in thoughts or logic from outside of the prepared materials.

I would advise returning the fees to the former client and letting them work it out with the new TPA.

There was such a time.

I believe that you are referring to Lines 4a, b and c, which technically report prior Sponsor, EIN and PN (but not plan name) "if the name and/or EIN of the plan sponsor has changed since the last return/report".

I'm not aware of a formal notification requirement to the DOL. I believe that the plan will be tracked by EIN and PN, so changing Line 1a of Form 5500 should not create a problem. Of course, there are notice requirements with respect to participant communication and information.

I'm only an abbreviation? I feel so minimized!

You win the award for the most obscure superman villain reference of the day.

(For emphasis only.)

Yes, but not Schedule SSA.

Each letter should be said separately and in order, of course.

Bravo.

As an acronym, I am highly offended by the insensitivity shown by posters in this topic.

I got a call about the very article Bird brings up. The client is convinced of an impending apocalypse and wants to "hide" all pension assets before they are confiscated.

I'm sure your sight is much clearer than mine. I'm also a bit deficient in the humor category.

Vision not so good, Mike?

First of all, I'm not even "supposedly" knowledgable. While the points you bring up with respect to determining actual fraud, cost in legal fees and whether or not recovery is even possible are pertinent, the main issue at point here is with respect to the restitution amount if there is a market downturn. Setting aside the other points, if the plan were to pursue recovery, do you think that the recipient of the funds could reasonably argue that only the "adjusted market value" is recoverable?