WDIK

I think I am either misunderstanding part of your post or the questions being posed. If I am reading correctly, you seem to be saying that the Corbel document has three provisions pertinent to your question. 1) "[C]ompensation is counted as of date person becomes ineligible." 2) "Hours of service definition counts all service." 3) "[A participant that moves from an eligible to an ineligible class] would be considered employed on the last day regardless of whether a member of the eligible class." In that case it appears the document stipulates that the participant is entitled to a contribution based on salary up to the date of status change. If that is not the case, please point out how I have misread the post.

If the plan definition of compensation for purposes of the safe harbor allocation does not exclude compensation attributable to severance pay after termination of employment, I would include it.

IRC 72(p)(2)(A)(ii)(I) addresses the limitation to the allowable loan amount that ties in to the accrued benefit. The limitation is "one-half of the present value of the nonforfeitable accrued benefit of the employee under the plan". Section 72(p)(2)(A) also indicates that "[f]or purposes of clause (ii), the present value of the nonforfeitable accrued benefit shall be determined without regard to any accumulated deductible employee contributions". (emphasis added) The law permitting deductible employee contributions was repealed.

My neurons seem to be working on low voltage today, so please forgive my lack of vision. I am trying to picture four plans (under a single trust) that cover the same employees but spell out different contribution formulas and allocations. Wouldn't then the eligible employees be entitled to the benefits under all four? How does stating in the notice which document would apply for any plan year negate the benefits adopted under three of the four plans? Wouldn't this have to be done by plan amendment rather than in a notice? As Tom points out, "The IRS is trying very hard to prevent people from treating the notice as an amendment." Please help me see what I am missing in your analysis.

The Schedule P instructions indicate the following: The statute of limitations under section 6501(a) for any trust described in section 401(a), which is exempt from tax under section 501(a), will not start to run until you file this schedule. You can view Section 6501(a) here.

The income limits apply on a year to year basis with resepct to contributions for that year. Prior year contributions that have been made can remain in the Roth and continue to grow.

In no particular order: 1) IRC 413©(2) addresses multiple employer plans and the exclusive benefit rule. 2) Based on an article I've seen, I believe Kirk Maldonado may have some expertise in this area. 3) May I propose a question to GBurns on behalf of J.C. Fogerty and CCR: I want to know, Have you ever seen the rain? I want to know, Have you ever seen the rain Comin' down on a sunny day?

You might be able to use this link as a starting point.

http://www.fso.arizona.edu/fso/deptman/9/914reloc.html http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentVi...tType=GSA_BASIC http://www.fp.ucalgary.ca/financial/policies/relocation.htm http://www.aecom.yu.edu/home/finance/relocation_policies.htm (Isn't Google great!)

I do not think that what you suggest avoids a prohibited transaction. IRC Section 4975(d)(1)© provides for an exemption from the applicable tax only if the loan "is made in accordance with specific provisions regarding such loans set forth in the plan."

Even if you took the position that the loan satisfied the requirements of 72(p) and therefore was not a deemed distribution, you still would have an operational failure that would need to be corrected under ECPRS. I agree with your statement regarding the prohibited transaction exemption.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28446

Two of the exceptions to the penalty listed in the 1099 instructions state: 1. The penalty will not apply to any failure that you can show was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. In general, you must be able to show that your failure was due to an event beyond your control or due to significant mitigating factors. You must also be able to show that you acted in a responsible manner and took steps to avoid the failure. 2. An inconsequential error or omission is not considered a failure to include correct information. An inconsequential error or omission does not prevent or hinder the IRS from processing the return, from correlating the information required to be shown on the return with the information shown on the payee’s tax return, or from otherwise putting the return to its intended use. Errors and omissions that are never inconsequential are those related to (a) a TIN, (b) a payee’s surname, and © any money amount. I would be comfortable in Belgarath's situation if reasonable efforts are made to maintain correct address records for participants. I would not be comfortable in Earl's situation where the addresses are merely omitted.

I thought that The Trashmen established in 1964 that the bird is the word.

If this information is complete, doesn't it fail to satisfy the requirements of Code Section 410(a)(4)(B)?

Perhaps this is why the instructions to Schedule SSA indicate that "[f]or defined contribution plans, enter the value of the participant’s account at the time of separation."

If I may be so bold as to summarize part of your analysis: Although some risks associated with taking a plan loan are incalculable and undeterminable, the possibility of these risks is enough to be a determent.

FormsRmylife: In a separate thread you cited a case that might also have some relevance here with respect to ERISA plans as contracts. See here or here.

I am not a lawyer, but is there anything wrong with plan language that excludes all employees with work visas.

Moe Howard2: I certainly apologize. It was not my intent to come across as snide, arrogant or demeaning. I will try to word my posts more carefully in the future to avoid any misunderstandings. I hope that the cite from the Revenue Procedure was of some use to you.

Reasonable minds, equally informed, seldom disagree. (or so I've heard)

Does the company have enough employees that the plan could pass coverage if the targeted employees were excluded by plan language?

If the cost of these factors is essentially undeterminable, how can you use them as a basis for your argument?

It has been my experience that they are very common.

If you didn't think/hope it might qualify, you wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.