WDIK

Provide them as soon as possibile.

In my case that would be copywronged.

There are several reasons why you cannot have a retroactive termination date. One is the anti-cutback issue you mention. Another is the 204(h) notice requirement.

If the IRS letter your client received is similar to the recent form letters our clients receive when a question regarding the absence of a filing exists, there is a page that you are asked to complete and return. Section I is for a filing that has been made and you enter the information as shown on the filed return, including EIN. That has typically corrected the issue without a lot of hassle.

I fail to see how fees of any sort would be classified as "other income" as explained in the instructions for line 2c. Line 2h appears to be more appropriate in my opinion.

I believe that IRC 401(h) allows a pension plan to provide health insurance for retired employees and their families.

I agree.

In my view, it is a stretch to equate "fluctuations" in the account with documented removal of assets (whether considered fraudulant or not).

You have stated several times that the participant count is "over 100." From another statement you made, it appears that the participant count for the 2006 filing was under 100. Based on these statements, the following questions may be important. Was the total participant count on the 2007 filing over 120? Was an application made for an extension of time (Form 5558) for the 2007 filing?

A bond is not required until an employee other than an owner/partner or an owner/partner's spouse becomes eligible to participate in the plan.

The information reported on the EZ does not reconcile the beginning versus end of year assets like Form 5500. I would refer you to the instructions for a description of the line entries.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=34207

Sieve: That's three of QDROphile's main themes in one day that you've had the privilege to encounter. You may just consider reading all of his prior posts.

I concur.

Sieve: Now you also need to become familiar with QDROphile's opinion about some plan documents. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...ost&p=93501 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...st&p=129643

I am not necessarily disagreeing that this fee payment scenario is possible. However, if the fees are that negligible, it does not seem practical to me consider such an approach as viable. The small benefit gained probably doesn't justify the additional cost, hassle and possible scrutiny.

As it appears you are aware, there are much bigger issues here than how many distributions must be made to a participant. Your client and/or the broker need to follow some advice from Robbie Williams.

Would it be possible to argue that some NHCE's are "effectively excluded" from this right because of a disparity in income? Certainly that is the logic used against creating a benefit formula that gives a higher match at higher deferral percentages.

Pick your poison. 1. Follow the plan document and have people irritated at the "delay" in receiving a distribution.2. and have people irritated at the additional cost and paperwork.3. and have people irritated at the additional cost and work.Good luck. As an aside, are all of the 'individual" accounts invested identically?

Depending on how the plan language was written, wouldn't it be possible to determine the amount due from the "pooled" account at the same time a determination is made from the "individual" account? This would avoid your concern regarding the double distributions. T r y i n g t o r e s i s t . . . b u t a m t o o w e a k . . . . . What possible purpose is being accomplished here other than giving the fiduciary additional uneeded exposure to discrimination issues?

Without getting into the "enhanced" match, my understanding of the safe harbor match is: 100% of the first 3% deferred, plus 50% of the next 2% deferred. Neither of the two scenarios you have stated meet that requirement. I'm not trying to be belligerent, just making sure that we are actually talking about a safe harbor plan so that board members can more accurately address your questions.

I don't think this is a safe harbor match.

Guilty as charged.

While we ask clients to certify the data provided to us for completing the testing, we do not ask for any type of post-certification. That seems to me like asking the client to certify we did our work correctly.

Apply all or a part of these contributions to the plan year in which they were made (rather than the prior year) to see if that eliminates your "overfunding" problem.