WDIK

I once heard that experts in communication can only understand each other about 80% of the time. I don't know where that leaves me. It all seemed so clear at the time. Mwyatt's assessment was correct. PYE=10/31; FYE=10/31; Plan effective date was 11/1 of calendar year preceding October adoption. (i.e. within the same fiscal year.) The entity was in existence prior to the effecitve date. I read RR 81-114 as relating to 404(a)(6) and the issue of deductibility. I have been watching other threads, but did not see a particular citation that could be given to the auditor concerning retroactive effective dates within the fiscal year. I appreciate the attention that this rather odd situation is receiving.

My understanding was the same as Belgarath and Derelict. P.S. I'm not a CPA.

I'm not sure I follow how we got from Point A to Point B based on the posts inbetween.

Here is one link that give a summary: Safe Harbor A search on BenefitsLink or on Google will provide you with many more.

Is a "worthy investment" the same for a plan with individually directed investments where the loan will be repaid to the participant's account as it is for a plan where all accounts would share in the loan interest? I would probably go forward in the former case, but I would be more wary in the latter.

If I understand your question better now, my response is that the top-heavy minimum is 3% without regard to integration.

Probably not, but do you think that most product practitioners are giving the "con" side?

1. Agree 2. Agree 3. Agree 4. Agree, but only in the year the contract was purchased (see instructions)

One of the prototype documents we have used applies a tiered approach for allocating contributions on an integrated basis. Step 1) 3% to all eligible Step 2) 3% of salary over TWB. Step 3) 2.7% to all eligbile Step 4) 2.7% of salary over TWB Step 5) Pro-rata of any additional amounts. Of course this would be modified slightly if the TWB is not used as the integration level. This seems to fit in with the approach you mentioned. Of course, it will probably come down to the actual language in the plan document.

My first thought was catch-up contributions, but for 2003 the catch-up amount is $2,000.

It is a defined benefit pension plan.

If by unbiased you mean willing to explain all of the pro's and con's about 412(i) plans, I agree wholeheartedly. If instead you mean without opinion based upon personal experience, I would guess it would be impossible to find such a person.

If I understand correctly, a plan is not eligible for DFVC if the DOL notifies the administrator in writing of a failture to file timely. Does anyone think this will eventually be expanded to include notification from the IRS?

I've considered your suggestion, but would first like to try and provide the information so that the client isn't placed in an adversarial situation.

The following thread may be of interest. http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=25&t=20540 I think it is also interesting, and may be applicable that in July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that conflicts between an SPD and its underlying plan document should be resolved in favor of the SPD. This decision was consistent with a number of similar rulings in other appellate courts.

I guess that is like someone who owns 5% of a corporation NOT being a 5% owner because the definition requires them to own more than 5%.

A client recently underwent an audit. Two of the major concerns with the IRS agent (who appears to be an "old-timer") were: 1) The plan was adopted/executed in October and had a retroactive effective date of the prior November 1st. 2) Contributions made after the end of the plan year (but before the extended due date of the corporate return) were deducted for that plan year. The second part should be fairly easy to resolve using Section 404(a)(6). I am having trouble finding an applicable citation for the first issue. I have reread several topics that address the issue of a new business entity set up mid-calendar year and IRS spokespersons opining that a 1/1 effective date is OK, but none of these provide a source. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated immensely. Needless to say, I am somewhat flabbergasted.

We need more references to upscale condiments on these message boards.

flosfur: Yes. Our competitor's fees are too high (though ours never are.)

http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...ST&f=23&t=19772

For some reason, the title of this thread struck me funny (maybe it's lack of sleep), but I would answer: 1) When he/she does a poor job; 2) When his/her fees are too high;

Here is another dumb question - are there prototype ESOP documents?

I had a late night and am not firing on all cylinders, but I don't understand something in your post. The investment company says no distributable event has occurred, yet they must make a "cash" distribution? Does the second plan accept rollover contributions? If so, that looks like a good option to me.

I think that RMD's are calculated based on the present value of the vested accrued benefit as of the prior valuation date, not when the benefit becomes available. Hence FrankPrager's very good suggestion.

It is legal for a plan to impose restrictions on the timing of distributions, such as a certain number of one-year breaks-in service, retirement age, etc.