WDIK

To which of the following discussions were you referring? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28156 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23275 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23733 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16760 http://boards.theforce.net/Classic_Trilogy...02/21736126/?26 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25886

Effen, your clarification is certainly warranted and upon further reflection, option #1 doesn't make sense on any level. There does not appear to be any way for a submitter to have no mass. The only massless particles that immediatly come to mind are gluons, gravitons, neutrinos and photons. Fortunately I am now beyond the grasp of my high school physics teacher, so he cannot try to change my transcripts.

Option #1: Very heavy plans versus weightless plans. Option #2: Plans that continually vote for Ted Kennedy versus other plans. Option #3: Submissions that meet the following definition from Revenue Procedure 2000-20 versus those that do not. 08 New Mass Submitter Definition - Both Rev. Proc. 89-9 and Rev. Proc. 89-13 provided procedures for simplified processing and expedited approval of mass submitter plans. Under Rev. Proc. 89-9, a mass submitter was defined as any person that submitted applications on behalf of at least 10 sponsoring organizations that were adopting the identical plan. Under Rev. Proc. 89-13, a mass submitter was defined as any person that could establish that at least 50 unaffiliated sponsors would adopt the identical plan. In general, this revenue procedure requires that at least 30 unaffiliated adopting sponsors adopt a basic plan document of the mass submitter, but it also provides a grandfather rule so that any person that received an opinion letter as a mass submitter under Rev. Proc. 89-9 will generally qualify as a mass submitter under this revenue procedure.

From the FAQ's found here: Does participation in the DFVC Program protect the plan administrator from other civil penalties that may be assessed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) for failing to timely file a Form 5500 Annual Return/Report? Both the IRS and PBGC have agreed to provide certain penalty relief under the Code and Title IV of ERISA for delinquent Form 5500s filed for Title I plans where the conditions of the DFVC Program have been satisfied. See sections 5.02 and 5.03 of the DFVC Program Federal Register Notice and IRS Notice 2002-23.

I agree that there does not seem to be a reason why the second filing could be skipped. However, such an approach places the filer in the position of Lucy to the EBSA's Ricky. (In other words, you got some splainin' to do.)

In my opinion, it would depend on the source of the need to amend the Schedule H. If the Schedule H changes are being made in response to the EBSA inquiry, you already correctly noted the procedure outlined in the Form 5500 instructions. If the Schedule H changes are being made are unrelated to the EBSA inquiry (for example, the auditor, while making the audit sufficient for the EBSA, discovers another item that needs corrected) it sounds more like an amended return to me. In the final analysis I doubt I would lose sleep over either alternative.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28838

1) I am not a lawyer; or 2) I am not a liar [this is not redundant in spite of some opinions]; or 3) I absolutely never advise leprechauns.

I assume you are referring to item 11 on the old Form 5500-C/R that was discontinued after the 1998 filing year. I do not believe that there is a corresponding set of questions under the new format, however an "ERISA Compliance Quick Checklist" was added to the Form 5500 instructions that addresses the issue.

The Form 5500-EZ instructions state that "[t]he plan administrator or employer (owner) must sign and date the Form 5500-EZ." It seems to me that whoever is authorized to act as the plan administrator upon the sole-proprietor's death is also authorized to sign the form.

Perhaps Brady Anderson.

Isn't there an individual who is authorized to settle the business affairs of the deceased (such as a spouse, heir or other authorized individual)?

Until now!! http://www.myshoppingonline.com/separation/separationold.htm (Views expressed in the preceding link do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this member or his management.)

If my memory serves me correctly, there is no requirement that participants receive advanced notice of the termination of a 401(k) plan (although it seems like from a employee relations standpoint a plan sponsor would be better off providing notice of its intentions), nor is there a requirement to notify IRS or DOL. That being said, if a request for a determination letter upon plan termination is being requested from the IRS, the various notices and time periods would apply.

I am reminded of the following exchange from "The Andy Griffith Show." Andy Taylor: Well, Barney, you know we always give the truck drivers an extra five miles an hour so they can make it up Turner's Grade. Barney Fife: Now Andy, if you let them take thirty, they'll take thirty-five. If you let them take thirty-five, they'll take forty. If you let them take forty, they'll take forty-five. If you... Andy Taylor: Uh, Barn.

Now I can get some real work done. (Where did I put that crossword puzzle?)

Even if the plan document gives such authority to the plan administrator, I would still ask whether the limitation was placed on a payroll or an aggregate basis.

Any hints for 12, 23 or 57?

How about the following statement that appears near the signature on Form 5500-EZ: "Under penalties of perjury and other penalties set forth in the instructions, I declare that I have examined this return, including accompanying schedules, statements and attachments, as well as the elctronic version of this return if it is being filed electronically, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete."

b2kates: You expressed the same sentiment in this discussion, but is seems fair to point out that several other members gave justifiable positions as to why it is not necessary. By the way, I agree with your assessment of the filing situation.

What period of time do you think is reasonable? The minimum number of days between date of hire and plan entry under the current eligibility rules will be 30 days. If notice is given on the hire date, everyone will have at least 30 days to elect otherwise. Since a safe-harbor notice that is issued within 30 days of the beginning of the plan year is considered reasonable, your current eligibility scenario doesn't bother me.

First, I would clarify if the plan document language limits the HCE deferral rate to 10% on a payroll basis or on an aggregate basis. The plan language will be controlling. If the limit is on a payroll basis, it would appear that you could not bring your year-to-date deferrals up to 10%. If the limit is on an aggregate basis, it may be possible to increase future deferral rates to above 10% so that by the end of the year total deferrals could be 10% of total compensation. Once again, however, it depends on the wording of the plan document and the plan administrator's interpretation thereof. (By the way "catch-up contributions" have a special meaning within 401(k) terminology that is unrelated to your query.)

One of the characters in number 24 was named Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg. Otherwise I am missing the same films.

This version appears much less forgiving with respect to the entries required to achieve a "True."

Do you have the password to unprotect the sheet, or only have the answers? (With a little bit of trial and error, I'm up to 32 correct, but doubt that I'll get much further.)