WDIK

Was there income allocable to the participant's account?

With respect to part 1 of your post: It appears that the pertinent wording in Rev. Proc. 2002-42 in determining whether or not a partial termination has occurred in this situation is "the employees vest in the continuing profit-sharing plan under the same vesting schedule that existed[.]" It further appears that the word of emphasis in this phrase is continuing. On the other hand, this Rev. Proc. specifically applies to the merger or conversion of a money purchase plan.

With respect to part 2 of your post: First, I didn't think the reasonable classifications test came into play if you passed coverage using the ratio percentage test. Second, Treasury Regulation 1.410(b)-4(b) states the following - (b) REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION ESTABLISHED BY THE EMPLOYER. A classification is established by the employer in accordance with this paragraph (b) if and only if, based on all the facts and circumstances, the classification is reasonable and is established under objective business criteria that identify the category of employees who benefit under the plan. Reasonable classifications generally include specified job categories, nature of compensation (i.e., salaried or hourly), geographic location, and similar bona fide business criteria. An enumeration of employees by name or other specific criteria having substantially the same effect as an enumeration by name is not considered a reasonable classification. This regulation does not necessarily mean that all job category classifications would be reasonable. It is a facts and circumstances test.

FYI http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32190

http://www.gocomics.com/frankandernest/2007/01/17/

First, I must admit to confusing the applicable years. My thoughts upon additional reflection are that the 2007 instructions, when they are issued, may very well allow codes B and P to be used together. It seems to me that the reason that is not the case on the 2006 forms is that Roth 401(k) deferrals were not allowed until 2006.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31833

For 2006 forms, doesn't code P indicate that the distribution is taxable in 2005, which would not be the case? It appears to me that you would use the code 8B.

As QDROphile points out, it appears that you are misapplying some terms and/or concepts. Please be more specific.

Is it possible to change the search function so that capitalization is not a factor when looking for a match? I have been stymied several times in my searches by a stray capital letter.

JanetM: Okay, curiosity has gotten the better of me. What were you doing in Iceland?

From my limited experience the $5,000 premium is more realistic.

Indeed.

According to instructions, Form 500 must be filed on or before the 180th day after the proposed termination date. I am not aware of a reason why the Form 500 could not be filed prior to the proposed termination date, however, it must be filed after the Notices of Plan Benefits. (Of course the determination of who is required to receive a notice of plan benefits is based on status as of the proposed termination date, so that may be the catch.)

Does the plan document have language indicating that any contribution by the employer is conditioned on its deductibility and will otherwise be returned to the employer?

It is my understanding that such matching contributions (for both HCE and NHCE) are included in the ACP test.

it may pay you cash when you get hurt and miss work.

Thanks for the warning, pax.

I will now retreat to the safe position of recommending that you seek competent legal counsel.

Adjusted as in reclassifying an "includable" form of compensation as a "nonincludable" form?

http://www.ezactuary.com/

Then what is the basis for the deferrals made during the year?

Does the document allow the change in the HCE's definition of compensation?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=32367&hl= I nearly forgot about ERISAnut.

I may not be seeing the whole picture, but isn't the issue that the definition of compensation may be discriminatory?