WDIK

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...ndpost&p=131957 Mike, I'm sorry that you find yourself in such poor company as mine.

Line 7i states, "If any participant(s) separated from service with a deferred vested benefit, enter the number of separated participants required to be reported on a Schedule SSA (Form 5500)." I would only count the "A"s based on that phraseology.

Other than the statutory 1000 hour level, I do not think that it is permissible to exclude participants based on hours worked under any type of document.

Although the plan may limit compensation for some purposes, that limitation should not apply in determining the status as a highly compensated employee, which is based on compensation received from the employer.

I don't think an orphan plan has a sponsor. I don't think that this is an abandoned plan as there are still fiduciaries acting forthe plan. I don't think that the plan without a sponsor can continue as a frozen plan. I don't think that the fiduciaries should delay in closing out the plan. Some say that I just don't think in general.

Could you elaborate?

Belgarath: How can you justify putting forth a hypothetical with such dubious suppositions as 1) an employer failing to provide complete and accurate information; and 2) attorneys liberally interpreting a document to the benefit of their client? Fortunately this is something none of us should ever have to deal with.

The maximum reimbursable amount (through the plan) is $10,630. Eligibility must be limited to employees. Some may receive a greater benefit by using the tax credit approach.

mjb - Your position certainly seems reasonable, and I have no basis to either dispute or support it. I merely suggested the approach that seemed certain to accomplish the desired result. As my pragmatic grandfather WDIG used to say, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

After following this thread for a while, I'm not sure I see any reason to draw scrutiny (whether deserved or not) by trying to obtain a waiver of participation from a prospective employee when the plan language can be drafted to achieve the desired result.

See Publication 590 (found here), starting at the bottom of page 53. (Note that the link is a pdf file.)

There are certainly some compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, it doesn't seem fair to provide benefits for my hearing-impaired grandmother WDYS and ignore the mental health needs of my depressed nephew WDIM. On the other hand, as leevena points out, mental health diagnoses are general more challenging than identifying physical maladies. For instance, is my brother WDIC's apathy a symptom of a serious mental illness or does he just have a grim outlook on life? What about my uncle WDYK? Does he put down other people because of some type of neurosis, or is he just arrogant? In my opinion, it would be better to be somewhat cautious in providing sweeping mental health benefits, but as understanding of the human brain improves, appropriate guidelines could be adopted. Such an approach would not give additional fodder for my nit-picking cousin WWTT.

So you agree with me that the IRS has been inconsistent in communicating its position on this topic.

The story of my life in more ways than one. No. What I am stating is that Publication 560 for 2000 defined a highly compensated employee as "an individual who...For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $80,000...", not the $85,000 which is the limit in effect for 2000.

As noted in a previous post on this thread (Mar 27, 2006, 4:27pm), at least with respect to Publication 560, I do not think the IRS has been consistent in its communication of the look back amounts.

Give the auditor a dime and tell him/her to keep the change.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29407

If there were eligible participants as of June 30, 2005, I think you should have filed by the April 15, 2006 extended due date, even if the assets reported on a cash basis were zero. You might want to look into the delinquent filers program.

...from each recordkeeper or other service provider.

It is my understanding that the SAS 70 is an in-depth audit of the internal controls of a service organization and that auditors of the retirement plan can rely on a SAS 70 for those purposes without the need for duplication. If a service organization has not had a SAS 70 audit, the plan auditors would need to do the additional work, probably increasing the cost.

Both plans should have language regarding the treatment of corrective distributions which may affect the scenario you describe. That being said, it is my understanding that the participant may notify either plan or allocate the amount of the excess deferral between the two plans. If a rollover of the account balance has already occurred in one of the plans, it seems to make sense to notify only the other plan.

It's a good thing insurance companies don't employ actuaries. FLMaster, may I join you at the beach?

Where can someone with my problem go for help? 9 - The Shawshank Redemption

It is obvious that you understand a great deal more than I do, as evidenced by your 39 posts (and counting) in a 24 hour period, which must be some type of record for these boards.

Actually, the term "government involvement" would seem to endorse a concept based primarily on humor;