WDIK

We will accept a statement from the client, provided there is enough detail to accurately complete the form.

Is there some reason that it is not viable for the participant in question to file his or her personal tax return and receive the refund to which he or she is entitled?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27188

I am not aware of a way to selectively apply true-up provisions. Documents rule, participants drool!

For the sake of brevity, and without substantially altering its meaning, couldn't the title of this thread be truncated to "Lawyer Argues"?

I was told of an employee a number of years ago that wanted to waive participation from a vanilla profit sharing plan. The employer fired him for "being too stupid to accept free money."

I believe that the amortization period is 5 years. The 15 year amortizaion is for multiemployer plans.

I believe it was the pre-conference session. I interpreted Mr. Holland's "might" statement as a foreshadowing of the guidance that will be issued. Perhaps I was being too optimistic. (I agree with your sentiments about the general lack of information provided during the conference, and I was also quite disappointed with the session on indexed plans.)

At the Los Angeles Benefits Conference, it was "highly recommended" by government representatives that the 415 amendments be adopted prior to any participant satisfying the accrual requirements for the 2008 plan year to avoid anti-cut back issues.

Nothing official, but in my opinion, Jim Holland all but verified that there will be a solution for the small DB EOY situation available "soon".

This sounds like another mutation of the ERSOP. Last week at the Los Angeles Benefits Conference, it was noted that while there may be ways to legally accomplish such a design the arrangements are also on the IRS radar as possible abusive tax avoidance schemes.

My recollection is that the Schedule R would need to be filed, if for no other reason than to report the distribution information [i.e. tax id number, in-kind contribution amount, etc.]

For what it's worth, it was mentioned at the Los Angeles Benefits Conference that a "safe harbor" deadline for segregating the deferrals is being considered by the DOL. I would guess that it would be in line with the example on the website.

Form 5310 is not a required filing.

If we are talking about a 401(k), the investment options will be established by the plan language and policy. It would be likely that you would be required to make investment elections through a particular provider. You should request a copy of the plan's Summary Plan Description (SPD).

Is there any chance we are actually talking about a Roth 401(k)?

Do they have compensation as defined under the terms of the plan?

I don't think that EZ's are available online.

First, I do not see it as impossible for any applicable refunds to be returned on 3/15, even though it happens to be a Saturday. Of course, the reality in most circumstances, is that such refunds would not be made on a Saturday. In that case, I agree it should be done by Friday.

The plan document should define the appropiate eligibility period and entry date. What type of document and language is being used?

As evidenced by recent posts, my memory is also suspect. However, it is my understanding that invoking the top-paid group rule allows you to exclude individuals from the HCE group that might otherwise be so classified. Even is someone is in the top-paid group, they must still satisfy one of the other definitions of an HCE.

That sounds like the form letters our office has been receiving. Our policy is to respond to the letter by providing documentation of the timely filing date.

For your reference, here is the section (previously cited) on which the assertion made by the TPA mentioned in the original post is likely based. (4) Elective contributions taken into account under the ADP test--(i) General rule. An elective contribution is taken into account in determining the ADR for an eligible employee for a plan year or applicable year only if each of the following requirements is satisfied-- (A) The elective contribution is allocated to the eligible employee’s account under the plan as of a date within that year. For purposes of this rule, an elective contribution is considered allocated as of a date within a year only if-- (1) The allocation is not contingent on the employee’s participation in the plan or performance of services on any date subsequent to that date; and (2) The elective contribution is actually paid to the trust no later than the end of the 12-month period immediately following the year to which the contribution relates. (B) The elective contribution relates to compensation that either-- (1) Would have been received by the employee in the year but for the employee’s election to defer under the arrangement; or (2) Is attributable to services performed by the employee in the year and, but for the employee’s election to defer, would have been received by the employee within 2½ months after the close of the year, but only if the plan provides for elective contributions that relate to compensation that would have been received after the close of a year to be allocated to such prior year rather than the year in which the compensation would have been received. (Sorry about the formatting.)

It is my recollection that an amendment for the automatic rollovers needed to be adopted by the end of the first plan year ending on or after March 28, 2005. So, unless that actual plan year end is between 3/7 and 3/27, it would appear VCP is in order.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33093