E as in ERISA

The 5500 itself is never due 180 days after year end. It is the 11-K that is due within 180 days.

You need to consult with a securities attorney. My understanding of the rules is consistent with yours -- that an 11-K is generally not required if deferrals are not invested in employer stock. But the issue is significant enough that you should consult legal counsel.

Some types of doctors -- like anesthesiologists -- don't have office hours for patients and don't have staff.

The auditors have to audit the other days.

I think that you consider all compensation of the doc (not his corp) through the date that his corp part of the plan. I'm assuming that these are C-corps? So it's not self-employment income? And the timing of the recognition of the income by the company is irrelevant to the doc's recognition of income? The doc doesn't have income until actually paid by the corp? And do you generally treat this as an affiliated service group? Or do you treat this as a multiple employer plan? It doesn't look a controlled group or companies under common control. And I'm assuming that it's not leased employees (because the group corp doesn't have control over the professional services of the docs)? If it is a multiple employer plan, then you need to decide when doc's corp terminated its adoption of the plan. As long as the doc's corp is still technically an adopting employer, then the terms of the plan still control. And the doc's comp through that date would still be considered for accrual purposes. If it is an affiliated service group, then that ASG status (with respect to that doc's corp) may be terminated when the contractual relationship between corps terminates. However, you need to make sure that the corp doesn't become a multiple employer plan when the affiliated service group relationship terminates. What does the plan say about which corps are in the plan? Did the doc's corp sign as an adopting employer? Did the doc's corp do anything to officially terminate that? Or does the plan do that automatically?

Blinky -- An employee who meets the eligibility requirements but does not defer is still a "participant" for most purposes.

Doesn't the certification by the trustee just relate to the PLAN/TRUST level FINANCIAL information? And the testing of the PARTICIPANT-level detail is for a different purpose -- to sample test whether the plan is operating in accordance with the regulatory requirements -- including the requirement to operate the plan according to its terms.

Was the money purchase contribution for 2002 deposited into the profit sharing plan during 2003? If you're reporting the money purchase on the accrual basis, the contribution would show up in income on the 2002 Form 5500, and the asset would be a contribution receivable. It shouldn't matter that the contribution wasn't received until after merger.

I agree with R Butler and Bob K. In smaller plans it may not be uncommon to reallocate as a nonelective contribution. But in a very large plan of a very large company, you would not expect to allocate it as a nonelective contribution. You might all of a sudden have an additional 1,000 or 10,000 participants with very small balances. And you'd have recordkeeping fees for all those participants. And you'd need investment elections (or default elections). Etc. Your Bysis contact may just have experience with small plans -- and may not have experience allocating as an additional match. PPD would have more experience with large plans. Or Bysis may just be indicating that they will not allocate the additonal match in the CURRENT year and it will not affect the CURRENT year's ACP.

The trust documents should also have been amended effective 12/31/01, so they should indicate that the new trustee has ownership of the assets as of that date even if it does not have actual possession. It's no different than any other case in which title is transferred prior to the physical transfer of the asset (house, car, etc.). The fact that the former owner is still in possession doesn't make them the owner.

Took me a couple of clicks....But I'm not blonde. I'm just generally of the opinion that it's better to send links than it is to cut and paste the whole text into e-mails and use up all that room on servers. So I was willing to go a couple of clicks....

It is still a 2002 prohibited transaction, isn't it. You have to answer "Yes" to the question about late deposits. And you should file a 5330. I think that if you follow the VFC's correction method, then you shouldn't have any DOL penalties on those correction amounts -- only additional amounts that might be discovered later?

Its taxable as soon as the risk is gone -- some people try and defer it further with "rolling risk of forfeiture" -- renewing the risk every time it is about to go away -- but the IRS has indicated its disapproval of that.

A 457(f) plan might subject the participant to forfeiture/loss of benefits if the participant doesn't continue in employment for five years. If the participant leaves in four and a half years, the participant gets nothing. If he is still there at the end of five years, then it is no longer subject to forfeiture and it is immediately taxable regardless of whether or not it is distributed. There is no limit on the dollar amount that can be deferred. It is very well suited for employer-provided benefits to a key employee to whom the employer wants to provide a "golden handcuff" to get him to stay around for a few years. The benefits of a 457(b) plan do not have to be subject to forfeiture. A participant could build up benefits with no risk of loss. They would not be taxable until they are distributed according to the terms of the plans (subject to the rules of 457(b)). There are limits on the dollar amounts that can be deferred (they have recently improved). These plans are better suited for deferral of a participants own money (that he doesn't want to forfeit but also doesn't want to be currently taxed on). Both plans can be offered by the same employer.

If the plan and trust documents state that the "effective date" of merger is 9/30/2002, then for legal purposes that is the date that the "disappearing" plan ceases to exist -- regardless of when the assets are physically transferred. The same is true for reporting purposes. Source? I don't know. It has always just been common knowledge in the circles I'm in -- that "effective date" for legal purposes means "effective date" for reporting purposes. But I've also heard Ian Dingwall and Michael Auerbach speak about plan year ends in merger situations on a number of occasions -- and their comments are consistent. They have mostly been dealing with more specific issues -- like what happens when the merger is effective at 12:01 on January 1, 2003 -- so there would potentially be a one minute audit and 5500 that had to be prepared.

No. Plan A is generally considered to have a short plan year ending on the LEGAL date of merger, not the date of transfer of the assets. (So, assuming the legal date occurred a couple of months prior to the date of transfer, the 5500 is probably late).

In a trust, there is a legal and a beneficial owner. ABC is the legal owner; Bob is the beneficial owner. So ABC FBO Bob is a good description of the ownership. Although ABC has the legal ownership, it cannot benefit itself.

I don't disagree with b2kates. I'm assuming that you have already done that and failed? If so, then you're stuck with my suggestion. (I believe that it has worked before -- although I don't have firsthand knowledge of that).

File the 5500 without an audit. When a notice is received, send a response telling the DOL very, very nicely that the information necessary to complete the audit is not available and describe the circumstances.

Note those certifying the 11-Ks: Remember that "you get what you pay for"....and you generally pay almost nothing for the 11-Ks. As a result, there is frequently very little time spent on them and they may even have numerous errors on their face. Start by making sure that the name of the plan, the name of the trustee, the description of the plan, the plan year are all correct...and that all references are internally consistent (you'd be surprised how often these are wrong!). And have someone who understands the requirements for benefit plan financial statements review them (or have someone trained to do so). There are special rules for plans that the auditors are completely unaware of (because they are generally the same persons who audit the company and don't know a thing about benefit plans) . E.g., a footnote disclosure of any "related party transactions" (both exempt and nonexempt) is required. But tell me if you see any footnote regarding transactions in employer stock in Enron stock (or Northern Trust funds) in their 11-K: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/102...018/ene11-k.txt (My guess is that the auditors did not perform the required review steps either).

Was the form prepared electronically? If so, can they supply the DOL with a duplicate unsigned copy -- with a note indicating that the original filed with the service was signed -- and that they didn't keep a signed copy? Did they get a return receipt for the extension -- or any other documentation regarding the postage -- that they can supply?

You might also consider this: http://benefitslink.com/IRS/ep-qual-assurance.pdf At least you wouldn't have to go back to day one.

Just remember that you still have to use a 12 month period if you use an "hours method." (I.e., you can't reduce it to six months and 500 hours -- because if you use less than 12 months then you are on the "elapsed time method" and anyone with six months would qualify).

If there are no assets, then transfer of assets is not an issue.

If you are reporting on the accrual basis, then you show the distribution as an expense item on the 2002 report and balance it by showing a payable on the liabilities.