WDIK

Does this mean that premiums were paid and filings made prior to 1980? One possibility is that (as you mention) after 1980 only one participant (assumed the owner) remained for a number of years. As discussed (maybe debated) on this board previously, the plan would then be exempt. Then later (when additional participants became eligible) it would be covered again. This scenario may be far-fetched, but it may help to eliminate some premiums, penalties and interest if a number of years can be excluded because only the owner was eligible.

I assume from this statement, that the EGTRRA amendment (Section 631) pertaining to catch-up contributions was not adopted. If that is the case, you cannot classify the excess amounts as catch-up contributions.

What about psychologically and emotionally necessary?

Prior discussion. Locater services in the Benefits Link Yellow Pages. There are others.

...but I like your response better.

The plan document and/or loan policy can allow the $10,000 loan (even if it exceeds 50% of the vested account balance) although it would need to be secured by outside collateral to the extent it exceeds 50% of the vested account balance. You should refer to your plan document and/or loan policy to determine the applicable loan provisions for your situation.

Even if the average compensation decreased under the scenario described by mwyatt, it is my understanding that benefits already accrued cannot be reduced.

EGTRRA did have provisions that (relating to the transfer of benefits from one DC plan to another) allow plan features to not be protected if the member consents and: – The transfer is a direct transfer, – The transfer is allowed by both plans, – The member received proper notice and elected the transfer, and – The member could have elected a lump sum. This link may help.

The website is www.rrb.gov.

See if this helps.

Benefits, Rights and Features

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the distribution be required by 12/31/2003, since the participant is already over age 70-1/2?

I nominate the boards newest member - erisamelissa It just sort of rolls off the tongue.

Dom, Since you are posting again, would you mind sharing your thoughts on the "hybrid 412(i) plan" referenced in this thread?

Also planeterisa.com

Definitely use the "more options" search. I have seldom had good luck with the regular search. Also, I have had more success since I started using the Advanced Usage Helps. (See link on more options search page.) The "+", "-" and "*" symbols really helped refine my searches.

Perhaps you could use some of the strategies being touted by these new 412(i) hybrid plans I've been hearing about....

Serenity now!

Can you specify limits on other items such as prescription drugs, hospital charges, etc? If not, what makes OTC drugs different?

Sorry, if my prior post seemed obtuse. I understand about deemed cashouts. To clarify, in AndyH's experience "the IRS has always accepted termination applications with those people non-vested and those not having incurred a break in service vested." It sounded to me as if those people being referred to were the deemed cashouts. What I was really trying to point out was the fact that it was unclear from the post if the IRS accepted termination applications where partially-vested, cashed-out participants were not entitled to the nonvested portion of their benefits.

"generic" would have been more creative.

The target benefit plan document should be updated prior to closing out the plan. You might also want to refer to this thread.

What about partially vested participants? Is everyone talking about the same thing?

Sounds like that is not likely.

Not that anyone will care, but I wanted to pass along the outcome of this audit as it pertained to the original two points posted. The original auditor brought along a second auditor from "the pension side" and the two issues quickly went away.