WDIK

In the case of a termination and final filing, I prefer a confirmation that checks have been cashed to ensure that no assets will revert back to or remain in the trust. If it is not a final filing, I am comfortable reporting distributions based on the check issue date.

https://eapps.naic.org/cis/ This website may be of interest to those looking for NAIC#s.

When you indicate that "[t]he deposit was made in 2006 and was recorded on the 2006 tax filing for the client rather than the 2005" are you saying that the contribution was deducted on the 2006 corporate tax return, but was not reported on any Form 5500? Also, what is the approximate value of the entire trust?

It is very likely that there is language in the plan document that addresses the issue.

Is there any particular reason to question the determination made by what should be a qualified individual who has all of the pertinent information available?

Was there anything out of the ordinary with respect to the amendment and its application?

I believe that is correct.

How do you go about amending the original effective date of an executed plan document? There is no problem filing a Form 5500 that shows zero assets.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=6824

I have only begun thinking about exploring the need to worry about it.

A new plan can have participants on the effective date, depending on eligibility requirements and entry dates.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42516

From the Form 5500 instructions: A pension plan is exempt from filing Schedule R if all of the following five conditions are met: • The plan is not a multiemployer defined benefit plan. • The plan is not a defined benefit plan or otherwise subject to the minimum funding standards of Code section 412 or ERISA section 302. • No in-kind distributions reportable on line 1 of Schedule R were distributed during the plan year. • No benefits were distributed during the plan year which are reportable on Form 1099-R using an EIN other than that of the plan sponsor or plan administrator. • In the case of a plan that is not a profit-sharing, ESOP or stock bonus plan, no plan benefits were distributed during the plan year in the form of a single-sum distribution.

Has it been established for certain that no filing was made? I would not just take the IRS's word for it.

I would be concerned about the "reasonably equivalent basis" requirement as well as the likelihood that such a scenario would make loans more available to highly compensated employees. I am not familiar with a specific prohibition or permission.

Just to clarify, is it accurate to say that they didn't withhold the deferrals twice, just deposited the original deferrals and then made an additional deposit that was equal to that amount?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=41440

You should use code 2A if your allocations are based on participant classifications and if one or more of your classification groups has mainly highly compensated employees;

masteff hits the nail on the head with the guidance given in the instructions. It may be of some interest to view the discussion in the following thread (although it is starting to get dated). http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27078

I know of no reason why a new (or additional) trust identification would be required.

If you use the search function for the term "missing participant" the number of threads may be overwhelming.

I believe that the amendment to the vesting schedule could be drafted to apply either retroactively or prospectively.

True, but that point did not seem applicable to this situation where getting cash in hand seems to be the issue.

Of course that makes perfect sense. I warned you I was dense today.

I don't mean to come across as being difficult, but to me the employer's objectives seem inconsistent. I don't know if the desired structuring would pass IRS muster or not, but I suspect that it goes against the intent of the cited regulations. I would think it would be more cost-effective to try and change the employer's perception of the situation.