WDIK

It appears that there has been a recent influx of new posters who are making semi-legitimate comments for the sole purpose of gaining exposure for a link in their signatures. (Bestprice, paulfinn31, vijendrasnv, for example). While it is possible to simply delete these posts, there might be some cases where the new posters are on the up and up. Should there be other restrictions, or is this not really a big deal?

Talk about the expanding power of governmental agencies...

The way I look at it, if the change in the value of an annuity is due to the fluxuation of an underlying asset (like a stock or mutual fund in a variable annuity), I treat it as an unrealized gain/loss. If the change in value is from additional amounts credited to the annuity, I treat it as income. I am also annoyed by the inconsistency between the 5500 and 5500-EZ in this regard.

What if an employee who has already completed a year of service turns 21 a few days after the first day of the plan year?

Aren't the original provisions also inappropriate?

Our tautology of the day.

A nograndeveintiocho: ¿Hay un propósito en traducir el párrafo ultimo de Mary C? (Other than providing a link to your website?)

Most of us would just find it exhausting.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43513

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42068

Several weeks before the due date, our firm sends a letter to clients for whom information is insufficient to complete the filing. The letter informs the client of the missing information and of our inability to complete the forms on the client's behalf. It also explains the possible penalties imposed for late filing. We then await the calls of panic, anger, irritation and slander. [Edited so that the first sentence actually makes sense.]

Stop calling me Shirley.

Unless there is some additional pertinent information about this situation, the position that both the new and the old entity are obligated to file a return for a single plan is ludicrous. Having said that, I am aware of a scenario where an IRS auditor required a husband and wife to both file returns for the single plan in which they were participants. The client complied to avoid irritating said auditor further.

If it is a restatment of an existing plan, the plan number does not need to change. The filing is for the complete plan year.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43088 The last post in the thread may be useful.

It seems to me that you have satisfied the five conditions.

It is my understanding that based on such an election the individual would not be a participant for Form 5500 or discrimination testing purposes, but would be taken into account to determine if the plan passes coverage.

Is the main purpose of this termination to facilitate moving funds from one investment provider to another?

Does anyone think the title of this thread should be "QDRO Smoodro"? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40343

Is the document an approved prototype?

Check out Notice 2009-68.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=41656

EBSA P.O. Box 7042 Lawrence, KS 66044-7042 (If by "now" you mean the last 10 years or so.)

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...27329&st=40