WDIK

You may also want to refer to this discussion.

Sounds like someone got up on the wrong side of the creek bed this morning.

I am in total agreement with you on these four points. I may have misunderstood your post, as I was commenting with respect to the original post asking about 3% top-heavy contribution for key employees.

I'm not sure I totally understand your post, but have the following observations: 1) I didn't think that a plan freeze necessarily resulted in 100% vesting. 2) Accounts continue to receive gains/losses under a frozen plan.

Tom, Are you thinking of the general allocation requirements, i.e. 501 hours or employed on the last day of the plan year? I'm pretty sure that standardized prototype documents can elect to exclude key employees from receiving top-heavy contributions.

It does to me. I don't want to put words in anyone else's mouth, but I think that the 40% option was brought up since Jed Macy was exploring options that would allow the limits to be established by the Administrative Committe rather than requiring a percentage limit in the plan document itself.

Perhaps the poster was hoping to rely on the first part of that quotation: "Ask, and it shall be given you;"

If I'm following the logic of this thread, the proposed increase to 40% would be to ensure that a statutory limit was reached, thus allowing the catch-up contributions. Then excess deferrals based on the ADP test would be returned.

Section 209 of HR 3762 (The Pension Security Act of 2002) proposed amending Section 4050 of ERISA to allow DC plan sponsors and noncovered DB plans to elect to transfer missing participant benefits to the PBGC upon plan termination. This bill was passed by the House on 4/11/2002. Then I think it died in committee in the Senate. Does anyone know of any current plans for resurrecting this provision?

Sorry to be redundant, but - How do they plan on getting around the notice requirement?

How do they plan on getting around the notice requirement?

Personal Opinion Only: I prefer obtaining a separate identification number for the trust if it is anticipated that the plan (rather than a bank trustee, insurance company, etc.) will be responsible for the payment of distributions, withholding thereon and preparation of 1099-R's. This avoids confusion with other tax deposits of the employer that sponsors the plan. If there will be a bank trustee or other entity that deposits the withholding under their own identification number, I will usually forgo obtaining an identification number for the trust. Once (before ID numbers were obtained by fax) a representative refused to issue us a separate number for a trust and told us that we had to use the employer's identification number. (Only once.) In another instance, an unrequested identification number was issued for the trust based on a letter trying to explain why some of the taxes paid under the employer's number was for payroll taxes and some for retirement plan withholding.

Does this help?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22411

You might try this site. It would appear to be categorized as "holistic."

The prototypes I am familiar with allow for additional language to be inserted for this purpose. Are these technically considered changes to the plan? My question is really irrelevant, since I agree this can be done, but I am curious.

Handy Link.

When do accruals under the plan cease? Edit: (BTW, PSP or MPPP?)

The original post never stated that the "recruit" would later become an HCE.

"I fear that we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve" Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto Empire of Japan December 7th, 1941

Even though the match is made quarterly, isn't the "discretionary" amount determined on an annual basis?

http://benefitslink.com/taxregs/72p-final-2002.shtml

A qualified preretirement survivor annuity is paid to the beneficiary of a participant who dies before the "annuity starting date". In other words, pre-retirement. In this case, it differs from an in-service distributions because it is due to the participant's death.

Form 5310-A must be filed at least 30 days before the merger, but if the Form 5310-A is not required to be filed are there other timing requirements for notice to participants? We have typically used the 30 days as a rule of thumb, but I was not able to quickly find a reference to additional notice requirements.

While the name of the surety company is no longer required on Form 5500, if it is a small plan with over 5% of its investments in "nonqualified assets", I believe that you must disclose the name of the surety company in the summary annual report to meet the requirements of exemption from the independent audit. That being said, we ask the client to provide us with the name of the surety company and bond amount and take their word on it. Even so, we have had to help nearly all of our clients get their bonds in place.