WDIK

Other discussion.

Ahhh, a man after my own heart.

Yes, but doesn't this apply before any benefits have accrued?

A recent string of posts prompted thoughts of another appropriate acronym. 2G2BT (Too good to be true!)

If you haven't already, you might refer to Form 5305A-SEP.

I think I would look at the situation in reverse. Does my situation fall under one of the examples given under "Exceptions from Filing" in the instructions? If not, I would file.

Isn't it 0% for the HCEs?

I do appreciate the consistency of your position, and the fact that you have a sense of humor.

I warned you once already. Remember?

There is not an exception for being age 50. There is an exception if the distribution is part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments made over the life expectancy of the employee.

I think you should definitely stab this one.

You are not wrong, older prototypes contain the language you describe. Newer prototypes add the hours requirements.

I have received similar "computer-generated" notices. At first I would write a letter explaining the exception (which was accepted), but have since found it easier to conform with the system, mark the box and attach the schedule.

Sorry dubya, but the spelling is different. http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/libr...io/1120484.html

It is my understanding that only the safe harbor contributions must be fully vested.

Just out of curiosity, why is the client having problems getting the bond?

Thank you for getting to the root of your original objections.

As I understand it, yes. Is there some reason to assume it is impossible to draft a document that would meet state requirements? If not, assume that it does meet state requirements. Why must we assume that it is in a state that does not allow MEWAs? Let's assume it is in a state that does allow them. Your caveats are appreciated and noted. If it is a legal impossibility under any circumstances to have a multiple employer flex plan, please state so and let's move on. Otherwise, please assume the arrangement is valid.

Was this issued in Boston 1774? Else why is the "T" missing?

There is no document to refer to as this is a "What If?" scenario. I guess I was fishing for any official guidance on the situations described.

Whichever method you choose, since few people really understand defined benefit plans, I have found it necessary to clarify over and over to clients that this breakdown of "costs" does not work the same as an individual 401(k) account. I actually had a client who tracked the annual cost breakdown used for deduction purposes and was irked that a participant's actual benefit was larger than this plus earnings.

Uh-oh, now you've done it. PEO + GBurns = Hot Topic

I think that the answer is in 401(k)(12).

I am either misinformed or misunderstand your post. A 401(k) plan that consists only of deferrals and safe-harbor contributions (either matching or nonelective) is exempt from the top-heavy requirements.

The vesting schedule used should be at least as favorable in each year as the required schedule.