WDIK

Agreed. I only disputed the logic.

...the fog slowly clears... I see the point that you are trying to make with the retroactive entry date. I have nothing that disputes the position you are taking.

Part of my previous post needs to be corrected. It should have read "volume submitter" rather than "prototype." Following are excerpts from these volume submitter documents for the two different scenarios: An Employee will be deemed to have completed a Year of Service on the last day of the applicable eligibility computation period during which the Employee is credited with 1,000 Hours of Service. An Employee will be deemed to have completed a Year of Service on the same date the Employee is credited with 1,000 Hours of Service, even if such date occurs before the last day of the applicable eligibility computation period.

One-participant retirement plans with assets less than $100,000 are generally not required to file, but they must still file a final return. I'm not sure that the logic holds.

I think that the real issue was already brought up by ccassetty. If the document language is such that eligibility is satisfied upon completion of 1000 hours, the employee is an eligible participant as of the first of the year. If the document language indicates that eligiblity is satisfied after one year of service (during which 1000 hours were credited), the employee is not an eligible participant because the termination date precedes the completion of the one year period. The prototype document that we use allows the adopting employer to select between these options.

The 402(g) limit is an individual limit.

Just out of curiosity, is this a 401(k) plan with an employer match?

single=sole or single=unmarried ?

Thanks for the candid comments, intelligent insights, and appropriate advice.

A participant is not necesarilly required to roll over 100% of their benefit. They may receive part of their benefit as a lump-sum and roll over the rest.

Blueglass: Please don't delete prior posts as it makes the thread difficult to follow afterwards.

AA) Because the topic title was ambiguous. (Thanks to whomever rewrote the title.)

It is supposed to be allocated based on the language in the plan document.

It is likely that your prototype document is a combined plan and trust document.

I can see how the original post could be interpreted as you indicate, but my initial reading was that the AP would receive 50% of the retirement benefit (rather than 50% of the payments) and that the AP benefits would commence when the participant begins receiving payments. Perhaps pjb could clarify.

There have been no posts on this topic because: A) The answer is so obvious that no response is required. B) The topic is too controversial. C) There is no correct response. D) There are an infinite number of correct responses. E) These message boards discriminate against pseudo-acronym usernames. F) Too much L-Tryptophan from Thanksgiving. G) Clerical oversight. H) Paranoia. I) Economic downturn. J) Right-wing conspiracy. K) Bad-hair day. L) Apathy. M) Technological glitch. O) Limited time (as compared to someone providing multiple choice reponses). P) Political pressure. Q) Peer Pressure. R) Litigation. S) HIPAA requirements. T) OSHA requirements. U) Plague. V) Cosmological forces. W) All of the above. X) None of the above. Y) Some other combination of the above. Z) Other.

The DFVC program is not available for EZ filers.

Lazarus, come forth!

I have no experience to base an opinion, but I did have some thoughts (some in support of, some opposed to, some indifferent to reimbursement): 1) Would the person purchase no shoes without a Dr.'s recommendation and diagnosis? 2) What would the person normally spend on a pair of shoes? 3) What are the comparable costs of shoes from an "orthopedic" store? 4) Would the reimbursement amount depend on the cost associated with the "good arch support?" 5) How could the additional cost be determined? 6) Does a doctor's recommendation translate to a medical necessity?

This prior discussion gives some opinions. With the delinquent filers program, you know up front what your maximum exposure would be. With the "excuse letter" you are taking some risk. I would present both options to the client and let them decide. One other thing to consider, the DFVC Program can only be used if the filings are made prior to notification of failure to file a timely return by the DOL.

For an employer that sponsors a defined benefit plan (or another plan where age plays a factor in allocations): Is it reasonable for the employer to consider the larger benefits provided under the plan to older employees when negotiating salary or would this be considered age-discrimination? Would the answer depend on the similarity in job positions between two individuals? In other words, two employees with the same job decription would receive different salary amounts if their ages were substantially different. Is the situation different when considering existing employees versus potential employees? Would the scenario change if it is an existing retirement plan as opposed to a potential plan? Thanks for your opinions and insight.

Is something curious going on here?

How Mama Cooks a Turkey

Butterball Turkey Hotline

401(k)(3)(A) (ii) the actual deferral percentage for eligible highly compensated employees (as defined in paragraph (5)) for the plan year bears a relationship to the actual deferral percentage for all other eligible employees for the preceding plan year which meets either of the following tests: (I) The actual deferral percentage for the group of eligible highly compensated employees is not more than the actual deferral percentage of all other eligible employees multiplied by 1.25. (II) The excess of the actual deferral percentage for the group of eligible highly compensated employees over that of all other eligible employees is not more than 2 percentage points, and the actual deferral percentage for the group of eligible highly compensated employees is not more than the actual deferral percentage of all other eligible employees multiplied by 2. (emphasis added) EDIT: Beat to the punch