WDIK

....that is to say within 200 posts or so.

I may be missing something due to 10/15 overload, but aren't "safe harbor" 401(k) contributions fully vested already?

If it is possible to categorize a "qualified" asset, what more information is needed?

There is a possibility that some employees entered the plan on or prior to the BOY and do not have account balances. They would still be counted for this entry. No, these individuals are included on line 7c. Again, someone could be an active participant without an account balance, but assuming all actives have account balances, I agree with your count. 7a - 76 7c - 16 7g - 92

Generally, no. There are only certain events that trigger the availability of a distribution, such as retirement, disability, or termination of employment. As an exception to the general rule, some plans do allow in-service distributions. You should review your Summary Plan Description to determine under what circumstances a distribution would be available to you. Perhaps you can exert some influence with the trustee(s) to obtain investment options more to your liking.

Friday October 8th, unless R. Butler implements his scheme.

Might not these same standards be applied to your interpretaion of the comments made by jsb, GBurns and me.

Although jsb's post may not be judged as the most "compassionate" in the thread, in my opinion it is the most valuable.

While true that Atlanta was in the WS 5 of the 9 times it was played during the 1990's (there was no WS in 1994), the Yankees have been in the WS 6 of the most recent 9. Following your logic, the road to the world series goes through the NY Yankees. Unfortunately, I am not a Yankee fan.

"Inspiration" or "Desperation"?

Two points that may help confuse the issue further: 1) The instructions for Form 5500-EZ indicate in part that you can only file this form if "[t]he plan does not provide benefits for anyone except you, or you and your spouse, or one or more partners and their spouses." 2) The instructions for Form 5500 indicate in part that "'alternate payees' entitled to benefits under a qualified domestic relations order are not to be counted as participants for [lines 6 and 7]".

The Form 5500 instructions for line 1b indicate in part that "once you use a plan or DFE number, continue to use it for that plan or DFE on all future filings with the IRS, DOL, and PBGC. Do not use it for any other plan or DFE, even if the first plan or DFE is terminated." Does your plan document assign a number to the plan? If so, was the document amended?

414(q)(3) Top-paid group An employee is in the top-paid group of employees for any year if such employee is in the group consisting of the top 20 percent of the employees when ranked on the basis of compensation paid during such year.

The instructions for Schedule I indicate that you can "use either the cash, modified cash, or accrual basis for recognition of transactions, as long as you use one method consistently." Why don't you want to file on an accrual basis?

A wagering individual would probably be smart to bet with pmacduff. However, if you like the longshots try Ecological Agricultural Projects or Extensible Authentication Protocol.

If you are generating the forms using a software program, I think it is likely that you may not be able to enter a 10-digit ID number. At least that is the case with the software we use. Even the IRS 945 fill-in form is set up to enter a 9-digit ID number, although I suppose you could eliminate the hyphen and add a "P" at the end. As Earl pointed out, it is very easy to apply for a new number. This may be the best course of action.

Wow pax! I don't know if I've ever come across a three-tiered link. (In other words, a link that leads to another link that leads to another link.) If you ignore duplication, you could actually consider it a four-tiered link.

I still have the following concerns: 1) As Lori pointed out, the actual DOL regulation does not mention this specific matter. 2) A post by MGB referred to a 1978 DOL opinion letter and indicated that the SAR was required in conjunction with the final filing. 3) Even if the PPC deskbook is correct, item #11 only refers to exempting from the disclosure requirement plans with no participants. It does not indicate that a participant that was paid out during the year from an ongoing plan is not entitled to the SAR.

I believe that an amended 2002 filing is in order. Also Form 5330 to pay the 10% tax (plus possible penalties and interest) on the 2002 funding deficiency. A Form 5330 for the 2003 funding deficience is also necessary. It is my understanding that the tax is based on the accumulated funding deficiency. (2002 + 2003) My favorite similar scenario was when we actually received a copy of the check that was to be deposited as the basis for completing the filing. The check was placed in a drawer and forgotten about for over 10 months.

Lori, please consider the following: A calendar year plan terminates and distributes all assets by 3/31/05. Based on your statement, no SAR would be required for either 2004 or 2005. I do not think that is the case. I would be happy to change my opinion if you can point me to some official guidance you may be aware of.

Ditto.

29 CFR 2520.104b-10(a) states in part that "the administrator of any employee benefit plan shall furnish annually to each participant of such plan and to each beneficiary receiving benefits under such plan (other than beneficiaries under a welfare plan) a summary annual report ". It does not make a distinction as to what point during the plan year someone must be considered a participant, i.e. participant at the beginning, middle or end of the year. Perhaps this is clarified elsewhere, but in the absence of such I would distribute a summary annual report to anyone who had been a participant at any time during the plan year. Even if the participant was paid out.

1) $400,000 2) $400,000 See 404(a)(7)(A) which uses the term "greater of". (Assumes at least one employee is covered under both plans)

banality: I get the impression that you feel as though you have been unfairly treated many based on some physical characteristic or mannerism. Would you mind sharing with us the basis for you being considered the "wrong type?"

A couple of good prior discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17954 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23926