WDIK

SAT time. Superman is to Lex Luthor as JerseyGirl is to... a) ManhattenGirl b) GBurns c) HIPPA d) JerseyBoy

Perhaps the plan document also designates the effective date as an entry date? If not, well, I'd rather not make disparaging remarks about your document. If the only entry dates in the document are 1/1 and 7/1, it appears to me that you are limited to those dates, so that there would only be one entry date (7/1) in the short plan year.

No need to be redundant.

Having attempted to clear the cobwebs, I want to start over. To account for the overpayment, the options appear to be: a) Include it on 2004 return as an income item. I would not show this as contributions but as other income. b) Include it as a negative liability on the 2003 return, which is what this technically appears to be. However, this is somewhat confusing so I don't like this approach. c) Include it as a receivable on the 2003 return and include the correction as other income. d) Reduce the distributions shown on the 2003 return based on the accrued correction and the net distribution. e) Reduce distributions shown on the 2004 return (if some exist) by the correction. I honestly can't say if one approach is "more correct" than another as long as documentation is given to justify the position. It appears to me that either a or c are the most straightforward.

As I thought more about this topic, I think that my approach may be flawed. If the 1099-R reported the distribution including the overage, there needs to be a correction made. As I've never seen a subsequent 1099-R issued showing a negative amount, I guess that means an amended 1099-R. Now I've confused myself as well.

Personally, I would make sure that the distribution amount on the Schedule I corresponds with Form 1099-R. I guess that leads to the question, "What amount should be shown on the 1099-R?", but presumably someone has already made that determination for the situation in question.

It is my understanding that as long as the funding deficiency is corrected by the next funding deadline that you only need to file the 5330 for the 2002 plan year. However, be prepared for penalties and interest for filing the 5330 late.

How do you plan on limiting participation to the owner under the new plan (to allow the EZ filing) and still be able to pass coverage?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24850

No, obviously I don't do enough work.

that new members "samadams" and "cbrewer1" both registered on the same day? Hmmm.

Some thoughts: 1) Whether or not to grant the extension is completely under the discretion of the PBGC and may depend on any of the following factors a) the length of the extension, b) efforts made to meet the original deadline c) how the PBGC representative's choice for lunch interacts with his/her gastro-intestinal constitution. 2) Since qualifying as a standard termination was dependent on the contribution receivable, I would think that the PBGC would need a compelling reason as to why the anticipated contribution cannot be made as scheduled. 3) I don't think that the minimum funding deadline is a factor. 4) If the amount of the shortfall is not prohibitive, perhaps a loan could be secured to bridge the five to six month gap.

The Schedule SSA instructions for line 4 box (f) pertain to defined benefit pension plans and indicate that you should "enter the amount of the periodic payment that the participant is entitled to receive." If the participant is entitled to receive a life annuity payable monthly, the entries should correspond to that fact.

So, are you suggesting that the next time a "real" deadline approaches all of us townspeople ignore it and refuse to make submissions? (TIC)

Mightn't there be an issue with the $100,000 of excess assets that would exist if $500,000 is contributed?

Page 15 of the 2003 instructions for Form 5500 address assigning a plan number, specificially item 1b.

Refer here for a more detailed explanation of Blinky's cardiological response.

I can't interpret the QDRO provisions, but it would seem you could carry the scenario too far. For example, what if the participant was only 20% vested in a total benefit of $10,000. The QDRO says the alternate payee gets 50% of a participant's plan account balance. Can you pay the AP $5,000? What if the particpant terminated before becoming entitled to over $5,000?

Another favorite that was previously overlooked - MarZDoates

When you say reduction factors, are you referring to something like the 5/9th-5/18th standard reduction? If so, I would think that such reduction factors apply to the participant. The alternate payee most likely receives an actuarially adjusted portion of the participant's reduced early retirement benefit as per the QDRO. I wouldn't think that the plan reduction factors would be extrapolated and applied to the altenate payee's benefit even though the alternate payee is below the plan's early retirement age. I must admit that I may be way out of my league on this topic, but what you are describing did not make sense to me.

Related discussion for your reference.

http://www.psca.org/

The discretionary profit sharing plan contribution is allocated based on the wording of the plan document and is separate from the matching contribution. Although the tiered approach you describe was designed to ensure that top-heavy minimum contributions were made, I do not see how providing a match would allow you to "skip" this step. Further, I don't think you can "skip" this step in the allocation just because another plan is providing the top-heavy minimum. Just one person's opinion. How would you propose that the allocation "verbiage" for the profit sharing contribution be changed in the context of a standardized prototype?

Ay, there's the rub. - Hamlet

I believe Internal Revenue Code Section 410(b)(4) provides the basis for what you describe. Also see Form 5500-EZ and instructions, particularly for item 14.