WDIK

I have heard nothing about Schedule T pulling a Lazarus. Coverage testing is now reported on Schedule R.

True, but the original post presents the supposition that "the plan is not top heavy, obviously due to high 401k participation of the non key HCE's."

1. Radiation Therapist 2. Nurse Paralegal 3. Genetic Counselor 4. Legal Nurse Consultant 5. Art Therapist 6. Computer Forensic Expert 7. Medical Illustrator 8. Veterinary Physical Therapist 9. Animal Defense Lawyer 10. Animal Assisted Therapist (According to CareerBuilder.com)

I do not think so.

Since the account balance is required to be restored if a future claim is made, it appears to me that the participant is still entitled to those benefits and Code D would not apply. Since the account balance is required to be restored if a future claim is made, it appears to me that the previously reported information has not been modified and Code B would not apply. Since this participant was not previously reported under another plan, it appears to me that Code C would not apply. I do not think that any additional reporting on Schedule SSA should be done.

Would you all kindly SPEAK UP!

Here is one of several pertinent discussions. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27767

Draft an amendment to the plan document, update the SPD and report the new number on Form 5500 filing.

Try Code Section 402(b)(4). (You might also try a more appropriate forum.)

I assume that in the situation you describe that the sponsoring employer was a sole-proprietor since you refer to the death of the employer. (This is somewhat unclear because you also refer to a board resolution.) If so, see the following thread. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30086 If not, there should be an authorized individual that can transact business on behalf of the corporation.

First of all, it is my understanding that a participant does not "elect" catch-up contributions. Rather catch-up contributions come into play as a result of a failed test or exceeded limit. Secondly, I don't see how the employee's assertion regarding catch-up contributions is relevant in this situation. As you point out, the correction method you are suggesting is based on the average amount actually deferred and does not factor in the excluded employee's "after-the-fact" election.

I am certainly not an expert on IRAs, insurance or anything else, but I do have two thoughts to share. 1) I fail to see how a VUL policy will "provide the same effect" as a Roth IRA. 2) It is now possible for a 401(k) to allow Roth deferrals if the plan document is appropriately amended.

This seems to be an extremely popular topic. You can find the most recent discussion here.

Is it a discretionary match, safe harbor match, other?

I haven't done one of these for over a year, but my recollection is as follows: #1 - No. #2 - An application for a determination letter is not required. #3 - Dates should correspond with the original amendment requirements. #4 - At the conclusion of the process, the IRS will send a letter accepting the corrections. The length of time varies. I would anticipate six to nine months, possibly longer.

The handy-dandy search feature provided in these forums frequently yeilds interesting results such as the following. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=30050

Perhaps you would prefer to narrow your search to 1.401(m)-3.

To be fair: 1) Effen wrote that the first post read like "SPAM", not "scam". 2) Effen indicated that he thought the letter to your sister was a scam, not your posting here. 3) The original post did contain at least one factual error which led to the conclusion that something did not make sense. 4) Advice in these forums is free and worth every penny of it.

See page 62 of Publication 590. (Especially "Withdrawal of excess contributions." and "Applying excess contributions.")

It is my understanding that the applicable class exemption applies to a relative or member of the family of the participant as well. I believe that the relative must be the beneficiary. See PTE 92-6.

I know this is a thread about "VEBA nondiscrimination", but I thought I would make this unrelated post about the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament here. I am always amazed at the number of close, competetive games, especially those that require one or more overtimes to decide the winner. This is the one sporting event that never seems to disappoint. As a side note, there are a couple of older threads in the VEBA forum that reference some pertinent Code sections for nondiscrimination. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21151 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=9843 (Edited for spelling errors)

According to the instruction for Form 1099-R, "If a participant’s accrued benefit is reduced (offset) to repay a loan, the amount of the account balance that is offset against the loan is an actual distribution. Report it as you would any other actual distribution."

I do not believe that the type of plan or allocation formula has any impact on the definition of a highly compensated employee, including the use of the top-paid group election.

As you continue your "risk analysis" you may want to consider some of these prior discussions. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22218 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21707 If the DFVCP is correctly used, there will be no additional penalties.

I agree. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=34390