WDIK

Agreed. Agreed, if by paying agent you are referring to the purchase of an irrevocable commitment. Agreed. (Bonus points for the mythological reference.)

I am unclear after reading your post if the daughters are eligible plan participants. If they are, you must file Form 5500. If they are not, it appears you can file Form 5500-EZ.

Which is precisely what I am trying to do. Forget the missing participant tangent for a moment, but what if a participant delayed cashing a distribution check? At what point would it be inappropriate to file a final Form 5500? Six months? After the extended due date of the return? One year? This is what I am driving at, albeit somewhat erraticaly and perhaps without a license.

Employing the constructive receipt rules as you describe, why is there ever an issue with missing participants? You could just mail out checks, issue 1099-R's and file a final return. EDIT: Note that the first post refers to filing a final 5500.

What if the checks are never cashed?

Would you be kind enough to provide the source for your statistics? A brief search on the internet leads me to believe that the 50% figure may be a misinterpretation. My assumption is based on the following: 1) According to information I read from Met Life, "at least 6.4 million people aged 65 or older need long-term care, with one in two over age 85 requiring care. At least half of the population who are 85+ will need help with Activities of Daily Living." 2) There are closer to 36 million people age 65 and older. (See here.) This leads to a result closer to 18% rather than the 50% you indicate. 3) Another website indicates that "most but not all persons in need of long-term care are elderly. Approximately 53% are persons aged 65 and older (6.4 million); 44% are working-age adults aged 18 to 64 (5.3 million); and 3% are children under age 18 (400,000)." Is it possible that you mean that of the people needing long term care approximately 53% are aged 65 and older? Thanks for clarifying and/or substantiating your position.

That's easy for you to say.

It is possible, if the plan allows such reimbursements.

What is the basis for declaring that "prior elections will not be carried forward"? I may be exposing my ignorance yet again, but I would think that it would be necessary to maintain the prior designations in the absence of an affirmative election to change them.

You might wish to explore the option of a cross-tested plan design with the HCE's designated as one (or more) allocation groups.

I am curious to hear from anyone that has filed a form 1096 showing 0 in boxes 3, 4 and 5.

Here is one prior discussion. You can find a number of others if you want to use the search feature.

Thank you for your patience and follow-up. The 3© instructions explain it very clearly. Please excuse my misunderstanding.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...opic=27154&st=0

You are going to have to help walk me through these instructions. Using the situation in the original post, item 3(a) on PBGC filing will be either item 1b(2) on the 2003 Schedule B or item 2a of the 2003 Schedule B. How is it that either of these possibilities will include a contribution made on 12/15/2003 for the 2003 plan year? Similarly, how is it that 1b(1)(a) and 1b(2)(a) on the 2003 Schedule H would include a contribution made on 12/15/2003 for the 2003 plan year?

SoCalActuary: Are you sure? It was my understanding that ACM filers used the actuarial value of assets for the funding standard account (line 1(b)(2) of the Schedule B) if the actuarial valuation date is the first day of the plan year. If I am not mistaken, line 1(b)(2) does not include current year contributions. If the actuarial valuation date is not the first day of the plan year, ACM filers use the beginning of year assets as reported on line 2(a) of the Schedule B. Again, I could be wrong, but I don't think that this value would include any contributions made during the plan year for that plan year.

GBurns: I read the initial post differently. The employer included union employees on the census but did not indicate that they were union employees.

Although I wouldn't consider a 10% error de minimus, I wouldn't be overly concerned about filing an amended return in this case. On the other hand, how much actual work would be involved in changing one line on the Form 5500.

The automatic rollover requirements apply to distributions that exceed $1,000. I believe that a model amendment was recently issued, but if you are using a prototype document, the vendor should provide you with an appropriate amendment.

Would you prefer the market value expressed in terms of wingtips, loafers or hightops?

As a prospective employer, a cover letter stating "for sake of brevity only the last 7 years employment history is provided, the remainder will be provided if needed", accompanying a resume that lists only one employer would raise a question in my mind. You can't get much briefer than listing a single employer. I would wonder whether the applicant was trying to hide something or understood the term brevity. The rest of the resume and cover letter would have to be pretty impressive for me to even want to see the remaining employement history.

What do you consider "de minimus?" 1% error, 5% error, 10% error?

One of the most frequent pieces of advice found on this forum is to obtain competent professional services. Based on your post, there appears to be enough potential liability to amply justify the cost of such consultation.

It is very unlikely, in my opinion, that any amount of detailed regulation will be enough to deter those individuals that want to push beyond the "edge of the envelope." On the other hand, failing to give clear guidance in the hope of relying on standard of "what a good person would do" seems doomed to failure.

I thought that the tracing rules applied to loans. (Q&A 7 of the 72(p) regulations) Do they apply to hardship distributions also? (emphasis added)This point has merit. I would get yelled at (by the participant, the client and the boss) if a hardship requested wasn't processed within two weeks, let alone 35 days.