WDIK

In addition to JanetM's comment, your confusion may be coming from one of the cautions in the Form 5500 instructions. This caution refers to the fact that Puerto Rico plans should only use Code 3C when there is no election made under section 1022(i)(2). If an election was made for a Puerto Rico plan then Code 3C does not apply. This caution does not, however, preclude Code 3C from applying to other types of plans besdies a Puerto Rico plan.

Certainly there was sense involved during the creation of regulations such as this. It is just that those individuals involved in the process are of such elite caliber that the sense used is not common.

The Schedule I instructions for Line 2a indicate the following: "Include the total cash contributions received and/or (for accrual basis plans) due to be received." (Edited for poor pasting skills. I always did use too much glue in elementary school.)

As with the safe harbor match, the 3% safe harbor non-elective (profit sharing) contribution must be 100% vested. Other contributions do not necessarily need to be vested immediately.

I am not familiar with this approach recommended by Fidelity. You should adopt some resolutions that put your intent to terminate the plan in writing. For a one-participant plan you would file Form 5500-EZ. The filing deadline is 7 months from the final distribution of plan assets. If the combined assets of both plans exceeded $100,000, you should already have been making filings.

I did not realize that a new designation had been applied. Already I am running amok.

Terrific! Now I can anonymously post "interesting" replies that may not necessarily be helpful.

The following link may be of some interest. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=163722,00.html#5

What, in particular, makes you feel uncertain about the proposed course of action?

Effen, was this the thread of which you were thinking? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33896

My prior post was quite poorly worded. Your response gives the impression that we are dealing with a profit sharing plan. With respect to the allocation of additional earnings, I would treat the former employees as any other terminated employee under the terms of the document.

Under the terms of the plan, did the participants accrue additional benefits during 2007 before the plan was frozen/terminated?

The prohibited deferral period begins "after the receipt of the hardship distribution". See 1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E)(2).

Prior thread discussing filing when assets never exceed filing threshold: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21497 Prior thread discussing filing when assets subsequently drop below filing threshold: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=34014

My first inclination when this thread started was to defend the TPA..........nevermind.

Digressing from the theoretical argument momentarily, from a practical standpoint, what is the dollar amount of the top-heavy contribution that is required?

The actuarial assumptions applicable for a plan are not selected arbitrarily. One of the factors in determining the plan's funding assumptions should probably be the investment strategy (policy) that will be utilized.

Of course you are right. Sorry for the inane post.

I know of no other line than on the Schedule P where the Trust identification is reported for Form 5500 filings.

The Schedule B instructions offer the following information. Line 1a. Actuarial Valuation Date. The valuation for a plan year may be as of any date in the plan year, including the first or last day of the plan year. Valuations must be performed within the period specified by ERISA section 103(d) and Code section 412(c )(9).

Due to the following four words.

I would use a calendar and a famous tract by Thomas Paine.

Just to clarify, I had hoped that my initial question would imply that I was skeptical of such an approach.

I am confused as to whether you believe the question I posed approves of or condemns the proposed methodology and whether you support or oppose such aforementioned approval or condemnation.

Is it customary or realistic that people would actually retire at that age?