Leopurrd

Also, you don't report Gov't securities, regardless of their percentage

as stated before, double check your plan document. Assuming the plan is not top heavy (and that your doc calls for the formula below), the easiest way to allocate the 10,000 is as follows: 1. Find your eligible base comp for each person, as you stated in your original document. 2. Find the comp over the taxable wage base for each person 3. Add these two numbers together for each person, and sum the totals as well. 4. Use the revised "Base" as calculated in 3 above(base + ss excess) as your new comp to allocate the 10,000. Using the formula above basically gives you the same % allocated on wages above the TWB as well as your base wages. Of course, Tom has a great point about top heavy. Be sure you are covering this first!

It depends. What does your doc say? There are basically 3 options you can have: 1. Pre-SBJPA rules where 70.5 RMD's are required by all, regardless of ownership; 2. Post-SBJPA rules where 70.5 RMD's are elective for non-owners and required for 5% owners; or 3. Election where your document prohibits 70.5 RMD's for non-owners and requires it for 5% owners; Sounds like your doc should have option #2.

Nope. If you're looking for gross comp for plan purposes, you'll need to request that from the plan sponsor. They probably have a payroll report they can pull.

Try searching for "SSA import" on the board. I remember a post about this a while back; I think it was on the Form 5500 board.

I've never used the Datair prototype but I can't believe it would be that silent on a lost participant like that. Are you sure there isn't another section of the doc that references these lost participants? For example, I know the Corbel/PPD documents call for a full forfeiture of the monies (deferrals included) if you can't find the participants in a specified amount of time. You would then keep a listing of those participants who were forfeited and use the forfeitures according to your document (fees/reduce/realloc, etc). If the participant were to request their monies at a later date, the employer would be obligated to "refund" the forfeitures to the participant. Again, your document should tell you how these monies come from the plan. My experience tells me most docs state forfeitures first, then earnings and additional ER contributions or something thereof. The only time this usually differs is if the plan is in the process of termination. Then, I don't think you can forfeit the monies, but you can use a rollover IRA or something like that. Hope this helps. I'm hoping someone with Datair doc experience can chime in as well

name's right. Check the administrative forms that came with the document and there should be loan forms in there. Of course, that's assuming he didn't get the "package deal" that comes with a 2 page adoption agreement with no forms!!!

If I remember correctly, the 5 year rule does NOT apply when RMD's have commenced. You would have to ensure that the distributions occur at least as quickly as they would have had the participant not passed on (or put another way, at least as fast as the deceased's RMD).

What does your plan say? Most trust docs allow the RMD to be distributed as an "installment" even if the plan allows only lump sums. Your doc may not allow the force out of the participant at age 62 unless his balance is under the cashout threshold. If he's over the cashout limit, you might be able to use the situation as a talking point to perhaps persuade him to take his entire balance (of course the RMD portion must be cash, the rest can be a rollover to an IRA where he can continue his RMD's).

If he signed a promissory note agreeing to payroll withholding, I'd hold him to it. Most participants don't follow the amort schedule accordingly and it could end up very messy for you and the participant. From personal experience, if a policy states payroll withholding I don't accept personal checks. If you have a participant who wants to write you a check instead of having it withheld from payroll, there's something fishy there. It nets out the same in my calcs!!! And, although I'm not sure about your question regarding the amendment, think of the ramification if you can, and do, amend the policy. You'd have other outstanding loans that would send in personal checks for repayment and this can add a lot of processing time to the loan situation - plus the question of, "is the check any good?"

Try this thread and the link to the older thread within it: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33686 Basically you have to ensure you are not discriminating in favor of HCE's, which may be the case in a match contributed only on higher %'s of deferred comp, as in your case.

Sounds like the plan was never administered correctly. In my opinion, you may need to go back and see when the forfeitures occurred and then see if and when they should be allocated and adjust the current participant balances. I would think that a partial plan termination would have occurred in 2003 when the last employee left and everything after that would be 100% vested, but it may not be the case.

I think that what RCline meant is that you usually do not have an hours requirement with an eligibility period of less than 6 months, so technically the eligibility portion of your doc is on elapsed time. (Say someone works 10 hours a month, only 60 hours in 6 months, and hey...they meet the service period of your doc. Same with a full time person. They may have worked over 1,000 hours in the 6 month period and they're eligible too). You can still use actual hours for crediting years of service for other plan purposes, like vesting.

Yes. The repayments on the deemed loan (if it has already been taken as income, that is) would be considered after-tax for basis purposes only. ("after-tax" contributions defined by your document are probably elective contributions tested under the ACP test....loan repayments are always after tax and do not depend on the document allowing for these types of contributions). You'd have to keep track of this so you know what's actually taxable to the participant when they take a full distribution @ termination or retirement. Vicki

You may want to look at the proposed 415 regulations. If your plan does in fact include severance pay (check the trust document for more info, they may be able to explain it further than the definition of compensation), then you may be able to include the first 2 1/2 months of that pay according the 415 regs....Corbel.com has a great explanation of them if you're looking for it. Vicki

That's certainly an option as well. It's rare nowadays to see clients paying fees that normally are passed on. Good luck! Vicki

If the balance is less than the fee, they don't get a distribution. Their entire balance is taken as fees. Vicki

Try the software directory here at benefitslink.com. I know they have several companies who offer 5500 software. http://benefitslink.com/software.html Vicki

Thanks, Kevin! Blue, I just got an ASPPA ASAP regarding the 2006 instructions for the 1099-R. You may want to read over those for more info. They probably make more sense than my rambling! Vicki

I wouldn't think so. I'm thinking that the codes it can be combined with further detail the transaction. For example, 1B would be a roth distribution in cash before age 59 1/2. Code GB (or BG?) would mean you rolled over the roth into a roth IRA. In a nutshell, it's like the normal codes, but you add the B if it's from a Roth. If anyone disagrees, I'm sure they'll post! Vicki

Check your adoption agreement language. Corbel's document specifically states on page 1 that "an amendment to the Adoption Agreement is not needed solely to reflect a change in the information in this Employer Information Section". (The section includes the name, address, telephone, EIN, Entity, CG/ASG status and Employer's fiscal year). For a Corbel doc, I'd say anything beyond that section would need an amendment, just from interpreting that one line in the AA. Other docs may have other rules. You may need to contact your document provider. Hope this helps, Vicki

What 5500 program do you use? I know Relius gives an example, but i don't think it has the funds listed, just how you can set it up. Relius also has the actual form available behind the Schedule H. If you need to do it on your own, you usually just list the mutual fund (total, not by person), the cost of the mutual fund (which the investment co. should be able to provide), the mkt value at end of year, and how many shares they own. Put a "*" in (a) if the fund is a party in interest. so...example (a) (b) Total Return Bond Fund © 1000 shares (d) 100,000 (e) 125,000 where at end of plan year you have 1,000 shs of bond fund, cost at 100,000, mkt at 125,000 you'll have to add maturity dates, etc if you have any notes in the plan. Vicki

Maybe they gave you the Schedule A information incorrectly; Perhaps it is information for the Schedule C? If the TPA is the claims administrator, I'm thinking you would report how much was paid to them on Schedule C, with a code of 13 (administration). If anyone out there has a contrary idea, please let me know. These things can get so confusing! Vicki

If the client was withholding based on the deferral elections on file, I would agree that the client should not have to amend. first of all, the deferrals should have been pre tax. Since the participants cut a check, that was definitely post tax.... As to how to fix? This is definitely new to me. Those that rolled over to an IRA should probably have their custodian notified that the distribution was not entirely pre-tax. The plan probably should return the other deferrals as a mistake of fact??? I'm anxious to see how someone else on the board would handle this.

I wouldn't re-run all your reports just for $500; Usually, when I run into something like this, I show it as a new contribution coming in for the next year (in your case, 2006). I've never heard of anything negative resulting from reporting like this, but perhaps someone else on the board has ran into something different?? Vicki