WDIK

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

See Treasury Reg. § 1.401(k)-2(a)(4).

How would you propose to take hardship requests over the telephone when you also indicate that there are "no phones" for this demographic? (Would it be correct to assume that you are currently using the postal service?)

The language in the plan document is th key, not what the "plan" [i assume you mean plan administrator] wants.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=37421

What is the result if the forfeiture fund increases in value? Does the employer get a credit?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30764

Isn't that why so many board members post under pseudonyms?

Is this what you are looking for? http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2008_415_white_paper.pdf

It is my understanding that the contribution for the 2007 plan year can be made any time after the "freeze date" up to the general funding deadlines.

It is possible to "unfreeze" a plan.

That's quite a long list.

I agree that they can continue to defer and that they are subject to the applicable RMD rules.

Professional Employer Organization

A newer user name was creative enough to remind me of this old thread, so I figured that deserved a nomination. SuzieQNEC

If you are going to file the 5500 as an amended return, I would proceed in the manner you have outlined.

At first glance, it appears that the plan likely invoked a rule that allows them to automatically roll over a participant's balance if it under $5,000. If that is the case, no change in plan type occurred, and there would be no impact on your vested percentage.

1. Agree 2. Agree 3. Therein lies one of the inherent problems of having a large portion of the plan invested in illiquid assets. Please provide a little more information, perhaps estimating total asset value, real estate value, and percentage of assets attributable to the owner. 4. Other than selling the property to an unrelated third-party, ideas would also depend on the specific information noted in 3.

http://www.bisysretirement.com/news/news.aspx?ID=462

October 15th is still too recent for me to comment objectively about plan auditors and the reasonableness of their requests.

Although I believe there are some special cases that apply to family members, perhaps it would be pertinent to ask "What compensation would be reasonable if they were not family members?" You may also have some interest reviewing the following thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30913

I thought that the notice spoken of in the Schedule C instructions was to 1) inform the actuaries or accountants that information regarding them and the explanation of their termination was being disclosed on a form open to public inspection; and 2) give them an opportunity to respond to the DOL regarding the explanation. If that is the case, it does not seem to me that a notice is required unless the Schedule C is filed.

That is my understanding.