WDIK

Yes. Yes. Yes.

The Schedule A instructions for Line 1(d) offer some clarification (before possibly yanking the rug out from beneath you.) Line 1(d). If individual policies with the same carrier are grouped as a unit for purposes of this report, and the group does not have one identification number, you may use the contract or identification number of one of the individual contracts provided this number is used consistently to report these contracts as a group and the plan administrator maintains the records necessary to disclose all the individual contract numbers in the group upon request. Use separate Schedules A to report individual contracts that cannot be grouped as a unit.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27900

Is the loan an investment directly attributable to the participant's account?

Now you're just being modest. What other superpowers do you possess?

If this phrase means that it is required to skip steps one and two in the allocation process, then it appears you are correct that the allocation was made improperly. If it means that the administrator has discretion as to whether or not the first two steps apply, and step one was implemented, it appears that the allocation was done properly.

In my opinion, the violation example you give is the fault of poor plan language. I would think that the plan would need to be drafted in such a way that the statutory eligiblity standards are met.

Would you mind sharing the plan language to which you refer? Even Derren Brown would probably have a hard time reading minds over the internet.

I would concentrate on the sections that define compensation and eligibility. I would also review the language in the safe harbor notice. (Cautionary note: Please do not let it come to QDROphile's attention that the plan language may not clearly address this topic.) Something else that may be a factor in making this determination is the actual entry date of this participant.

Check the plan document for the allocation method. Many documents used a tiered approach under which the integrated portion of the calculation would not actually kick in until the allocation exceeds the 3% level. It certainly seems possible to me that, because of the contribution level, a pro-rata allocation was the correct result under an integrated formula.

Fine, but to what percentage of compensation would the flat dollar amount tranlate? It does not.

The allocation formula could be amended prospectively, but not retroactively. See above. What was the amount of profit sharing contribution made as a percentage of compensation?

First of all, if I were the employer, I would have a more negative reaction toward employees if they stirred up something at the Deparment of Labor than if they simply requested a Summary Plan Description. If your relative cannot bring herself to request the SPD, perhaps she has a kind co-worker that has a copy or would request one for her.

Based on my understanding, I would answer "yes" to both questions you pose.

From the 1099-R instructions - Excess contributions. Excess contributions can occur in a 401(k) plan or a SARSEP. For a 401(k) plan, if the withdrawal of the excess plus earnings occurs within 2-1/2 months after the close of the plan year, the excess and earnings are taxable to the participant in the year deferred. But if the corrective elective distribution is made after the 2-1/2-month period, or the excess contribution (not including earnings) (and excess aggregate contributions (not including earnings) in the case of a 401(k) plan) is less than $100, the excess (other than designated Roth account contributions) and earnings are taxable in the year distributed. (Sorry to duplicate, masteff. I guess it's quicker to post the link.)

In general, you correct an ADP test failure by 1) recharacterizing excess contributions; 2) restructuring the portion of the plan attributable to elective contributions; 3) making QNECs or QMACs that are treated as elective contributions; 4) return the excess contributions and allocable income as described in Notice 97-2; or 5) some combination of the above.

Determination of HCE - $95,000 for the look-back year. (at the risk of digging up some worms best left buried in an older thread) Annual Comp. Limit - $220,000 Annual Additions - $45,000 (Assuming the limitation year is the plan year.)

http://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2007/08/26/

I share your concern.

Most of our clients have completed their portion of the process with extreme ease. A few have managed to make things much more difficult than necessary. Personally, I would rather deal with the difficulties of those few (telephone calls walking them through every screen multiple times) rather than "sign" the forms on their behalf.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32667 For what it's worth, we still stamp the date on the signature line.

We file them in bulk and get a certificate of mailing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20227400/site/newsweek/

What great news for me personally that the immediate in "immediate and heavy financial need" includes a range of two months. Now when my daughter asks for some extra shoe money I can give it to her "immediately", or when my wife asks me when I'm going to mow the lawn I can tell her that I'll do it immediately.

No. In fact, the majority complain that we provide one every five years.