WDIK

Are Carol Writing and Carol the Writer the same person?

It seems logical to me that if there is to be a blanket suspension of deferrals then a plan amendment discontinuing deferrals would be the most appropriate. Consider the possibility of a stubborn participant who refuses to change the deferral election.

With respect to item #1, I do not think the language of 1.401(k)-1(a)(4)(ii) implies that IRC 404(n) is no longer applicable.

QDROphile: Your point is well-taken with regard to cafeteria plan and other welfare plan election periods. However, since this was posted in the 401(k) forum, my answer was geared specifically toward that type of plan. The fact that I have never seen a 401(k) plan document require annual deferral elections prompted my use of the word "atypical". (The preceding paragraph should in no way be interpreted to infer that I am not an idiot, which fact I must concede.)

I am not familiar with Accudraft's 2004 5500 software, so some of these issues may have been resolved from earlier versions. 1) Any validation with respect to the logic of line entries was extremely limited. A user needed to be very competent. 2) There were a variety of errors that cropped up with the printing process. 3) The support staff was able to give adequate assistance to correct most problems. 4) The software was extremely affordable. 5) It takes some time to get used to the question and answer format.

To what part of the 2005 instructions does your question refer?

Please forgive my memory, but I am unable to recall how parties-in-interest relate to the Schedule D. If you are asking the question with respect to the Schedule H Line 4i attachment, the following link may be of interest. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...opic=25444&st=0

I fall into the "most" category. An exception may exist if plan language is atypical.

So do bad acupuncturists...

Although a partial termination is determined based on facts and circumstance, the 20% threshhold is used as a rule of thumb. If you have never heard of a partial termination for such a situation, perhaps you should refer the case to a more experienced firm.

From the PBGC Standard Termination Filing Instructions (page 4): Making Plans Sufficient. To facilitate the termination of a plan and the distribution of assets in a standard termination, a contributing sponsor or controlled group member may make a commitment in writing to the plan to contribute, by the distribution date, the amount necessary to make the plan sufficient for all plan benefits (see the specific instructions to item 5, Schedule EA-S). In addition, majority owners (individuals owning 50 percent or more of the interest of the employer) may agree to forgo receipt of all or part of their plan benefits until the benefits of all other plan participants have been satisfied (see the specific instructions to item 6, Schedule EA-S).

I cannot provide a link, but here is an excerpt from Notice 88-56 that appears to be on topic. (I cannot speak as to the current applicability of the information.) Q-7: What amount of employer securities held by an ESOP or tax credit ESOP constitutes a de minimus amount of employer securities that is not subject to the diversification of investments requirement of section 401(a)(28)? A-7: If the fair market value (determined at the plan valuation date immediately preceding the first day on which a qualified participant is eligible to make a diversification election) of the employer securities acquired by or contributed to an ESOP after December 31, 1986, and allocated to a qualified participant's account is $500 or less, then such employer securities will be considered to constitute a de minimis amount of employer securities that is not subject to the diversification of investments requirement of section 401(a)(28). A plan may elect to use a de minimis amount of less than $500. For purposes of determining whether the amount of employer securities acquired by or contributed to an ESOP after December 31, 1986, and allocated to the account of a qualified participant exceed the de minimis amount described above, employer securities held in accounts of all ESOPs or tax credit ESOPs maintained by an employer corporation and by members of the controlled group of corporations (within the meaning of section 414(b), ©, (m) or (o)) which includes the employer corporation shall be considered as held by the same plan.

Back in the "old days", before the 5558 was an automatic extension if filed, the IRS would use red ink (just like my high school English teacher) to change the date to the actual mailing date. To use your situation as an example and to better illustrate the previous confusing setence, if my extension was filed with a 10/15/2005 requested date, it would be returned with an approved date of 10/17/2005. I would file the form with the 10/17/2005 date.

However, not quite as risky as the die, receive death benefits and insurance proceeds, rise from the grave scam.

Several good discussions and references are available in some of the boards older threads. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...opic=21907&st=0 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20733 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20568 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=2901

My opinion only, but I do not equate "covered under the plan" with "benefiting under the plan" in this context. If an employee is an eligible participant, I would provide them with the SMM.

We include all pages. On the flipside of your argument, there is nothing in the instructions that indicate you should not file the entire form.

I probably would not interpret the plan provision you refer to quite so broadly. It does not seem to me that such discretionary authority would apply to each individual participant, rather the discretion is used to establish a nondiscriminatory policy that is applied fairly and consistently to all "cash-out" situations. With respect to balances beneath the $1,000 level, the plan document or plan policy should indicate one procedure. I do not think that the "form" of distribution can be arbitrarily selected.

From 29 CFR 2520.104b-3(a) (emphasis added) The administrator of an employee benefit plan subject to the provisions of part 1 of title I of the Act shall, in accordance with Sec. 2520.104b-1(b), furnish a summary description of any material modification to the plan and any change in the information required by section 102(b) of the Act and Sec. 2520.102-3 of these regulations to be included in the summary plan description to each participant covered under the plan and each beneficiary receiving benefits under the plan.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28979

After rereading the statute and reviewing the posts, I am in agreement with Belgarath and Pensions in Paradise.

Can my left pinky have a "do-over" to type 2011 instead of 2012?

Isn't there an exception to the section 107 requirement for small plans (under 100 participants) and welfare plans?

As part of EGTRRA, I believe that this credit is also scheduled to "sunset" effective January 1, 2012, unless those provisions are revised.

If memory serves me correctly, fringe benefit plans have distinctions between highly compensated employees, highly compensated individuals and highly compensated participants. IRS Publication 15-B may offer some assistance. As far as the definition of key employees, Code Section 125 refers to Code Section 416(i).