WDIK

I believe the plan document could read either way. 1) The eligibility requirement is satisfied as soon as the hours requirement is met during the time period; or 2) The eligibility requirement is satisfied at the conculsion of the stipulated time period if enough hours were attained. Hopefully, the plan document is specific enough to clarify the situation. (Edited for either poor spelling or poor typing.)

What I was trying to say, in my typically obscure way, was that the father and wife are highly compensated employees because of ownership. It does not matter whether they are in the top-paid group or not. The 5% owner test supercedes the top-paid group test.

The top-paid group election does not allow exclusion of five percent owners.

Could this be the distinction?

I think the same principles apply as noted by Bird in this previous post. To clarify, I agree with Bird's assertion that such participants would be deemed distributed "at the point of plan termination" and would not be included in the participant count thereafter.

For good or ill, I do not have any practical experience with a multiemployer 401(k) plan.

Here is an interesting discussion that, although relevant, will probably result in more questions than answers.

The IRS addresses multiemployer 401(k) plans in some of their plan examination guidelines, as has the DOL in some media releases. There are also a number of other resources such as this book.

I have the same memory.

Thanks, at least, for not posting another test image.

I would recommend reviewing the plan document for language regarding deemed distributions.

It is my understanding based on Treasury Regulation 1.416-1, Question T-12, that key employee status is based on the standing of the employee during the plan year containing the determination date. In other words, if the employee is not an owner or officer during 2004, they are not a key employee for the 12/31/2004 determination date.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking, but the Form 8717 indicates the applicable fee based upon the form that is being filed and what determinations are to be made. For example, a request for a determination that the plan satisfies the average benefits test (Demo 5) or a general test (Demo 6) requires the higher fee. Is that what you are looking for?

I have seen a Form 668-A(ICS) with a revision date of January 2003, but do not know if that is the most recent or if it is currently being used.

I think that I agree with the previous statements that it is based on the "legal" date of merger.

I think sections 1.6012-1(a)(5) & (6) address the issue of the 1040, including those limited circumstances where authority may be granted to a representative. I cannot speak as to the form 5500.

I don't have the proper letters behind my name to make an authoritative interpretation, but the following excerpt (particularly the last sentence) from Publication 590 seems to indicate that you would not qualify. First-time homebuyer. Generally, you are a first-time homebuyer if you had no present interest in a main home during the 2-year period ending on the date of acquisition of the home which the distribution is being used to buy, build, or rebuild. If you are married, your spouse must also meet this no-ownership requirement.

This list only goes through 1996, but may be of some assistance.

If you are easily frightened or easily offended, do not access the following link. http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/10/31/

This thread may provide some relevant information.

It doesn't seem like they were very profitiable, so to what are they committed?

Eye dew knot sea the knead four spill cheek and doughnut no two hoom Kirk is refereeing.

All our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. - Walt Disney

Assuming that 1) the adopting employer is still allowed to utilize the document sponsored by Principal; and 2) the amendment changes a provision elected by the adopting employer (in other words it does not change the language of the prototype or volume submitter document itself) it seems feasible to draft an amendment changing that provision, although the effective date of the change to the deferral limits depends some on the wording of all applicable provisions. (In other words, be cautious of a retroactive amendment.)

More discussion is available here.