could be me maybe not

Had to look it up. Googled "invective". Learned two things. (1) How many others knew that invective was word of the day on March 19, 2001. (2) Now I know what vituperation means. Credits to dictionary.com in·vec·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vktv) n. Denunciatory or abusive language; vituperation. Denunciatory or abusive expression or discourse. adj. Of, relating to, or characterized by denunciatory or abusive language. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [From Middle English invectif, denunciatory, from Old French, from Late Latin invectvus, reproachful, abusive, from Latin invectus, past participle of inveh, to inveigh against. See inveigh.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- invective invective was Word of the Day on March 19, 2001.

Nice picture, IMHO.

Does the profit sharing plan have a last day requirement? If not, you could consider a Floor/Offset. Closest thing to a legitimate rabbit. And Blinky's the resident Floor/Offset guru.

Right. You did the right thing. You just got a few too many "drinks thrown at you" unnecessarily in the process, IMO.

The plan sponsor better never have a common law employee become eligible; then he'd have a big problem.

FBO those who may live in ivory towers, in the uninformed stupid world, sometimes the payroll system comes first, then the HR person responsible for the 401(k) plan, then the 401(k) plan. And sometimes the HR person does not have the clout to get a payroll system replaced away.

Not specific to frogman's situation, but I'd love to hear the outcome of legal action taken by somebody fired for contacting the DOL about late 401(k) deposits. Aside from private lawyers, I'd bet some of the DOL activists would just drool over the though of punitive action in such a case. Can anybody out there intelligently comment on the possibilities?

Fair enough; good advice. But, frogman, walk tall in clearing this up knowing that you have a big stick.

frogman, you need to contact the USDOL now. Your employer needs to get a "random" audit. Now. I happen to despise the DOL's frenzied, aggressive, unprofessional (IMO) behavior. But here is one situation in which they could actually do good.

This would be incomplete without some commentary by Hoard2.

And do you not count yourself amongst the "pot stirrers"? Or do you prefer a different delivery system?

oh, come on, this is great! Look at all the benefitslink extreme characters dh attracts! (no, not all of you-just a whole bunch!). A virtual character Hall of Fame. to Hans: purple monkey dishwasher

Belgarath, remember, the question isn't would you rather have A-Rod or Cabrera, it's a question of A-Rod or Carbrera plus one or two additional star players. Let's see, A-Rod or Cabrera, Foulke and Varitek for example. With very few exceptions, one star position player never seems to have that much of an impact for some reason.

Ok, then, for the panel, how does one determine the current 415 limit at, say, age 65 for someone who previously had a db plan of the same employer and previously received a lump som of, say, $700,000 in 1987 or so? In other words, the person (business owner) is in plan 2 and was already maxed out in plan 1 years ago. And this is not hypothetical. It is a real situation. Comp at 417 limit, 10 + yos and yop. Prior NRA was 55. Current plan NRA is 65. Somewhere I read to simply increase the prior lump sum at the current 417(e) rate to current age and convert that to a current annuity. Correct? I cannot find where I read that. Mike, I could be totally wrong but my memory thinks that there is a 20% chance that you were the source of this approach. Wrong?

merlin, isn't there a moratorium on FDLs for cash balance plans? If so, you will have an indefinite 11-(g) correction period. I believe that you have 90 days from the issuance of the FDL to do a corrective amendment to fix a failed test.

Can vegetarians eat hamburgers?

And, while we are discussing history, are doctors the cause of all of the regulations, or just the controlled group and affiliated service rules? Not to mention the prohibited transaction rules I suppose.

Like I said a year or two ago. When EF Hutton speaks....................Jeez.....