WDIK

It has been my understanding that the last day requirement is one of the provisions that distinguished a non-standardized prototype document from a standardized.

I had always assumed that it was merely a transposition error and that you were full of carp.

As previously stated, no offense was intended. In particular, the post was not meant to be a reflection upon Joel's posting the information, merely my lack of focus to read through it in its entirety. But if any good has come out of my comment, at least it has gotten you to defend someone who you so vigorously and recently berated.

No offense was intended, as I realize that the information was of specfic interest to you. My post was merely an attempt to express in a humorous way my being overwhelmed by the three thousand four hundred and nine words in the three posts above.

What a good rea...zzzzzzz

It is my opinion on the matter that they would be entitled to a Summary Annual Report.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26056&hl

This is only my opinion, but I do not think that a reportable transaction occurs if the assets are merged into another plan and no sale or purchase has ocurred.

The following is found at the bottom of page 44 of the 2003 instructions. Notes: (1) Participant loans under an individual account plan with investment experience segregated for each account, that are made in accordance with 29 CFR 2550.408b-1 and that are secured solely by a portion of the participant’s vested accrued benefit, may be aggregated for reporting purposes in item 4i. Under identity of borrower enter “Participant loans,” under rate of interest enter the lowest rate and the highest rate charged during the plan year (e.g., 8%–10%), under the cost and proceeds columns enter zero, and under current value enter the total amount of these loans.

The plan's vesting schedule, if chosen carefully, can also plan an important role in the amount of future required distributions.

I disagree. It is my understanding that the applicable dollar amount for a look-back year is the dollar amount for the calendar year in which the look-back year begins. (As Belgarath noted and cited)

Precisely. So why not just give a 6% profit sharing contribution to everyone (as Brenda's IRS friend recommended) and avoid the testing issues?

I would venture a guess that jim is referring to 1.401(k)-1(d)(3) of the Treasury Regs. (3) RULES APPLICABLE TO DISTRIBUTIONS UPON PLAN TERMINATION. A distribution may not be made under paragraph (d)(1)(iii) of this section if the employer establishes or maintains a successor plan. For purposes of this rule, the definition of the term "employer" contained in paragraph (g)(6) of this section is applied as of the date of plan termination, and a successor plan is any other defined contribution plan maintained by the same employer. However, if at all times during the 24-month period beginning 12 months before the termination, fewer than two percent of the employees who were eligible under the defined contribution plan that includes the cash or deferred arrangement as of the date of plan termination are eligible under the other defined contribution plan, the other plan is not a successor plan. The term "defined contribution plan" means a plan that is a defined contribution plan as defined in section 414(i), but does not include an employee stock ownership plan as defined in section 4975(e) or 409(a) or a simplified employee pension as defined in section 408(k). A plan is a successor plan only if it exists at any time during the period beginning on the date of plan termination and ending 12 months after distribution of all assets from the terminated plan.

My question would be, "Why doesn't every employee defer a few cents and get a 6% bonus?"

Tom: Not to be a nitpicker, but you may want to add a "not" in the appropriate line.

As I read it, the purpose was to show why David thought the employee might be in a class of employees not eligible for the ORP. As to the other items, I understand your responses better now. Thanks.

GBurns: I interpreted some of the posts differently than you did (though I cannot speak as to the accuracy of the information contained in the posts) namely: 1) David Lacy was pointing out that not all employees (for example groundskeeprs)of a university in Texas are eligible for ORP, not that a professor was trying avoid being classified as an employee. 2) ACollins makes no mention of a surrender penalty, but does refer to the 10% early distribution penalty paid to the government. 3) ACollins refers only to the mandatory retirement program rather than an option to elect ORP.

The amount of the loan available ties in with the participant's vested present value of accrued benefit. The loan itself is considered an asset of the trust in general rather than being "assigned" to that participant's benefit.

This was not your original question. You initial post talked about one person allocation groups. A one person allocation group does not require a choice between a plan contribution and a cash payment (which would be considered a CODA, in my opinion). So, if your question is "Can a participant choose between a contribution and a paycheck?" you are talking about salary deferrals subject to ADP testing. If, on the other hand, your question is "Can a plan, subject to the cross-testing rules, make contributions to allocation groups consisting of one person?" I think Tom's link is right on point.

After reviewing the worksheet on page 21 of Publication 560, I think I can see where Moe Howard2 is coming from. Although I do not condone what in my opinion was at best a poorly-worded retort, it must be difficult dealing with Larry and Curly (or Shemp or Joe or Curly Joe) all day long. It appears to me that the deduction worksheet does not cap income at the $200,000 level when applying the reduced rate of contribution, although it does later impose a $200,000 limit at the actual rate of contribution. This appears to create some strange scenarios if step 3 yields a result between $200,000 and $220,000 (the level where Bird's comments appear to kick in.) I must also say that this is a brand new concept for me, so I would appreciate anyone pointing out the flaws in my hurried analysis. (Edited so at to not slight the remaining stooges.)

If the integration level is greater than 80% but less than 100% of the TWB, the 5.7% must be reduced to 5.4%. If the integration level is greater than the greater of $10,000 or 20% of the TWB, but not more than 80%, 5.7% must be reduced to 4.3%.

Who has acted as the trustee of the plan following the death of the original trustee?

Are you any worse off than not filing at all?

jevd sure went out on a limb preditcting 2.4 days in advance.

As recently as 1998, the form 5500 instructions indicated that you should use 333 for multiple-employer plans where the participating employer was also the plan sponsor. P.S. I guess that falls within the years and years ago if years=2 or 3 so your statement would mean 4 to six years ago.