WDIK

But in both instances, katieinny indicates that the participant is retired as well as over 70-1/2.

.06 Determination letter application for plan amendments related to a VCP submission. In any case in which correction of a Qualification Failure includes correction of a Plan Document Failure or Demographic Failure, or an Operational Failure by plan amendment, as permitted under section 4.05, other than the adoption of an amendment designated by the Service as a model amendment or the adoption of a prototype or volume submitter plan for which the Plan Sponsor has reliance on the plan’s opinion or advisory letter as provided in Rev. Proc. 2003-6, 2003-1 I.R.B. 191, the Plan Sponsor must submit a copy of the amendment, the appropriate application form (i.e., Form 5300 series or Form 6406), and the appropriate user fee concurrently and to the same address as the VCP submission. The user fee for the determination letter application and the fee for the VCP submission must be submitted on separate checks made payable to the U.S. Treasury. See section 11.11 for the VCP mailing address.

If you are talking about the EASTMAN KODAK EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN, it appears to be a qualified plan (based on the 5500 filing). I know of no reason why it should be exempt. Is there some reason why you think it might be?

If you are looking for general information about ROTH IRA guidlines, try publication 590, available at the IRS website. If you are looking for help in setting up a ROTH IRA, there are many banks and other entities who act as custodians and are willing to help. If you are asking about investment advice, refer to some of the past discussions on this board. For example, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26516

How was the amendment drafted?

Bad form!

It sounds like you have spent at least $190 worth of time and effort with regard to this beneficiary. Can you send a bill?

Please tell me that I'm not crazy and the author of the prior post used to be anarchocap. Is there a way to change the post's author, or did you just cut the text, delete the original, and post it under the currently listed name?

I appreciate your feedback.

A defined benefit pension plan covers a controlled group consisting of a sole-proprietor and a C corporation. Is it correct, based on the wording in 404(g)(2), that the corporation can make and deduct the entire required contribution, including any portion attributable to the sole-proprietor's Schedule C income? If so, is it also possible to split the contribution and deduction between the sole-proprietor and the corporation in any arbitrary fashion?

In my opinion, your lack of communication with applicant is not only discourteous, but may increase your potential liability. The applicant may pass up additional opportunities under the false hope that you will honor the verbal and written agreement you made.

This recent thread may offer some clarification.

From the final rules for the DFVCP found here: Annual reports filed under the DFVC Program may be subjected to the usual edit tests and plan administrators have an opportunity to correct identified deficiencies in accordance with the procedures described in Sec. 2560.502c-2. The failure to correct deficiencies in accordance with these procedures may result in the assessment of further penalties, and the payment of DFVC Program penalties do not serve to reduce the additional civil penalties that may be assessed for the filing of a deficient annual report. It does not appear that you would be able to "leave blank" any information without being exposed to the possibility of additional penalties. If the administrator thinks it would be a nightmare to collect or recreate the necessary information, have them add up the possible penalties for nonfilers. That should really keep them up at night.

Wasn't that a song by the Andrews Sisters?

The new plan will be a successor plan if it exists within the twelve month period following the distribution of the old plan's assets.

Of course, to be eligible for the reduced penalties, the required filings under the DFVC Program must be made prior to the date the administrator is notified in writing by the DOL of a failure to file timely. If the DOL is notified of the failure by the plan administrator, there may be some timing issues to consider as well.

The safe harbor option is definitely one worth exploring to allow the owners to maximize their 401(k) deferrals. It can also "exempt" the plan from top-heavy status if only safe harbor contributions are made. However, be sure and coordinate the overall goals of the client and the demographic makeup (including disparity in salaries/ages) with the plan design.

The 5500 filing is based on the plan year rather than the policy year.

I may have misunderstood your comment, but it is possible to have different eligibility requirements for different contribution types, deferrals, match and nonelective.

I assume that the son (or another family member) will inherit the business and could maintain the plan thereafter. This lends legitimacy to the permanance issue.

https://www.mand.com/secure/newsletter/oct2002.html

Of course, we already know about Effen's fees.

Perhaps a spinoff would be more appropriate.

It also appears that the funding deficiencies were not fully corrected and would be subject to the 100% excise tax as well.

If I were cynical I might be inclined to believe that they want loans available so that the owner(s) can take loans, but don't want the headache of dealing with loans for the rank and file. Whatever approach you take, make sure that it could not be construed as discriminatory against the non-highly compensated.