WDIK

Because the government is involved.

The bank may be coming to forclose today, but at least I'm making progress with this infernal puzzle. 3 - The Matrix Reloaded Number six is one "t" shy of being Raiders of the Lost Ark. (EDIT: Perhaps if no one provides the answer for number 9, Tom will not be motivated to provide any further distractions today.)

Perhaps the key to being a great consultant is knowing what questions should be asked. Regardless, ignoring "Hurdle 1", I still have the same concerns as posted above for "Hurdle 2." (This post is not meant to imply that I, personally, am a great, or even mediocre, consultant.)

I admit I have a problem. Two more and then back to work. 10 - Pretty Woman 12 - Lord of the Rings

You probably meant to type a 7 instead of a 6. While I admit I am not an expert on 125 plans, I do not think there is such a requirement.

I agree with Pensions in Paradise, monthly deposits will not generally pass muster. First, could you describe the the nature of the "pooled account" in a little more detail. I'm not sure if you are referring to some type of annuity product with multiple fund investment options or a single investment account where the trustee authorizes investments based on the participant elections. Second, if I were a fiduciary in this situation, I would not want to be placed in the position of trying to justify why, if participants are empowered to make their own investments elections, funds were sitting in a money market or non-interest bearing checking account for months, if they could have reasonably been invested.

To start off with a couple of easy ones (and then hopefully get back to work): 1 - Citizen Kane 4 - Lethal Weapon

Possibily... 9 - Rio Grande 10 - The Virginian

I don't know what response you'll receive from other board members on such a subject, but you may be able to find the information you are looking for from some other sources. www.PayScale.com www.Monster.com www.hotjobs.com

I've heard it said that a good lawyer knows the answer before the question is asked. In this case, I would want my representative to have a good idea of the provision the IRS thinks applies before asking, or in the alternative, have a good idea of a provision that supports my position.

Although slightly outdated, the following link may be of interest to you. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/benchmarking.html

If the entity sponsoring the plan also began business on 01/01/2006, then the salary component does not come into play. If, however, salary was paid during 2005, this amount is used in determining highly compensated status.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28587

Thanks DFerrare. I needed a good chuckle today.

I guess what I'm saying is that the MRDs are non-taxable, so what was the point of making Roth deferrals subject to 401(a)(9).

Sure, but just suppossing you have an actively employed 70-1/2 year old that wants to continue making Roth deferrals for several years....

It's all Greek to me.

Just looking for the comfort that comes from a collaborative consensus. Under final regulations, designated Roth contributions are subject to the rules of section 401(a)(9)(A) and (B) in the same manner as pre-tax elective contributions. MRDs based on Roth deferrals are non-taxable. Am I missing something?

If we could get all registered members (currently 14,988) to send in a dime, would that cover your fees?

This does not seem consistent with the wording of the publications above.

It is my opinion that either Publication 560 is wrong or the other sources referred to (such as the Pension Answer Book) are wrong. In reviewing prior Publications 560, I noticed a change in the IRS's wording. Looking only at those years where there was the dollar amount was incremented I discovered the following with respect to the definition of a highly compensated employee. For 2000 tax year (from Pub. 560 for 2000): "For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $80,000 ($85,000 for certain non-calendar year plans making a calendar year data election described in Notice 97–45 in Cumulative Bulletin 1997–2) and, if you so choose, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation." This does not correspond with mjb's opinion. For 2002 tax year (from Pub. 560 for 2002): "For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $85,000 and, if you so choose, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation." This also does not correspond with mjb's opinion. For 2004 tax year (from Pub. 560 for 2004): "For the preceding year, received compensation from you of more than $90,000 and, if you so choose, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. This $90,000 amount increases to $95,000 in 2005." Adding the last sentence to this definition makes it somewhat ambiguous but in my opinion, tends to correspond more with mjb's opinion. As has already been cited, I think that the 2005 Pub. 560 does correspond with mjb's opinion. It is curious to me that the according to the publications, the application of the limitation seems to have changed. Whether this was intentional or not I cannot say.

A participant loan is a plan investment, and as such it is part of determining participant account balances.

mjb: Your points would be more convincing to me if your choice of source material didn't seem so selective.

As a "non-lawyer" my opinion certainly cannot be relied upon to interpret language as complex as that found in Internal Revenue Code and Regulations. That being said, the previously cited regulation appeared pertinent because it seemed to be saying that you apply the dollar amount in effect for the calender year in which the look-back year begins for look-back year purposes. Perhaps it is a lack of self-confidence, but I am always inclined to question my own understanding of an issue. It is troubling to me that there is not a consensus on this topic among sources that I consider reputable, such as The Pension Answer Book, Tax Facts, IRS Publication 560, McKay Hochman website, etc.

And yet the same Q356 indicates that "[t]he applicable dollar amount for a particular determination or look-back year is the dollar amount for the calendar year in which the determination year or look-back year begins," which is from the temporary regs. (emphasis added)