WDIK

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?

Why should the responsible party be entitled to keep half of the fraudulantly obtained monies?

I agree with WDIK, JanetM and J Simmons.

I believe that the 402(g) limit is tied to the participant's tax year, not the plan year.

So far, I have avoided learning the intricacies of QACA's like moldy saltines and rabid ducks, so take this opinion in stride. The same notice and qualified percentage should apply to all eligible employees.

Perhaps I'm not looking at the whole picture, but this statement does not ring true to me. Unless the losses due to investments would have exceeded 100%, how is it possible for the plan to be in a better situation. If the payments should not have been made they should be returned.

In my mind, it is clearly $200,000. No ifs, ands, or buts. Earnings have nothing whatsoever to do with the appropriate contribution and its allocation, whether required or discretionary.

I think you probably did a great job of reading between the lines.

Why not? I get regular soliciations from a company that want's to know if I have any clients with terminating plans so they give quotes on deferred annuities (group or single).

A Cash or Deferred Arrangement exists if an employee can elect to receive a cash payment or have it contributed on his or her behalf to some type of tax-deferred arrangement like a 401(k) plan. Based on the information provided, I do not see the scenario you describe as CODA.

In my opinion, it seems unnecessary to complicate the discussion with a scenario that you admit you've never seen. Even so, I'm sure that we agree the investment gains or losses do not change the amount of the plan contribution, which was the point of the first three responses. Does it not seem much more likely that we are talking about a pooled investment account scenario based on the fact that the "trustee decides to do an interim valuation"? In that case, the issue of unallocated trust subaccount versus allocation participant account seems irrelevant.

I am having a hard time visualizing how any timing issues would affect the analysis that investment losses do not reduce the amount of the contribution.

I agree. The contribution amount is based on the deposit into the trust, not on the segregation to a single participant's "account".

http://www.elite.net/~runner/jennifers/yes.htm

Not finalized, but the following thread may be of some interest. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=39507

Does that mean you get an extra day to finish AFTAP certifications?

I do not think that the value of the plan assets is pertinent in determining which form to file.

As I understand the requirements for DFVCP, it is not a matter of whether you file Form 5500 or Form 5500-EZ, it is a matter of whether or not Title I applies.

Careful there Sieve. You may be confusing me with some of my relatives. WDYK - my arrogant uncle WDIM - my depressed nephew WDYS - my deaf grandmother WDIC - my apathetic brother WWTT - my nit-picking cousin The list goes on and on.

Affirmative.

I interpreted meeh3704's post to mean that the company want's 1 year with 2000 total required hours for profit sharing eligibility. Such an approach would not be allowed.

That is what I am saying. Yes, I am. I am seeing that phrase. The date and time indicated are "July 11 2008, 04:18 PM". Thanks for your attention.

Exceeding a plan limit is an acceptable scenario for applying the catch-up rules.

Not to pile on, but I have experienced the same problem. My "new" posts go back to July 11th. I am using Internet Explorer.