namealreadyinuse

What works (no cite of course) is to amend the plan to add a new contribution mechanism and call it something like a super-duper profit sharing II contribution to give to the new group. If it is equal to the first contribution, it passes testing (right?). Lots of smart people on this board will rightly criticize this approach and it is not guaranteed to work. Proceed with caution (and legal help).

Withdrawal looks like it will be off the charts. Payments under the CBA would definitely be preferable.

Any ideas about how to address potential withdrawal liability after an employee led de-certificaiton of the union. There was no employer involvement/pressure but now no bargained employees are employed and it will be a technical withdrawal we are afraid. Any ideas/similar experiences?

Technically I don't think you can use a 5307 if the plan was once an unpaired non-prototype. Patrick - I am shocked that you got that through without some dead language and effective dates in the GUST and EGTRRA document.

Two points. 1) I believe the new IRS position in the 409A regulations is that employee salary deferrals cannot (or at least usually cannot) be made subject to a SRF, but I don't think your goal is really to establish a SRF. 2) What do you want to accomplish? Tax deferral? No need for SRF unless it is a tax-exempt or governmental employer (457(f) plan). All you have to do is avoid constructive receipt and economic benefit. That is what this is about: .

I didn't ask why UBIT wouldn't kill the deal. I asked why it wouldn't "kill" the deal. UBIT would decrease the return and cause heartburn from a prudence standpoint for any investment, imo.

That is not a substanital risk of forfeiture for either 83 or 409A.

Is it a ERSOP or does the plan own the rental directly? Why doesn't UBIT kill this plan?

It wouldn't bother me if there was a right to completely take the right to payment away. 409A is concerned with further deferral and early access to the money. It would be a forfeiture condition that does not rise to the level of a substantial risk of forfeiture for 409A. 409A would be satisfied in my mind.

Are you asking whether a noncompete constitutes a risk of forfeiture for 409A? No, it does not under the proposed regulations. But . . . you can draft a 457(f) plan with a provision for payment within one year after termination of employment and not violate 409A.

1) Don't let B employees participate in A's plan. 2) Amend A's plan to allow in-service withdrawals of all but 401(k) money under the 2/5 year rule. 3) Fire Mr. Doe.

SPD has to identify trustee, I believe, so be sure to check that.

Doesn't the pte for interest free loans apply?

Define "fix." Technically, you have ineligible employes (all of them). You should definitely file as anonymous if you are going to try your luck. If employer no longer exists and plan is being terminated, there may not be any point in filing an application that will take over a year to get resolution on and that may require re-allocation of assets or other correction.

We just finished DOL audit and auditor filled out calculator for us and exepected correction to be made on that basis. It doesn't sound like there is much consistency in this area.

I have heard administrators apply a "2 times loan balance" rule for security for loans, but I don't know if that is in the regulations or their plans/procedures. We are trying to come up with a formula for determining how much should be available for hardship distributions and want to know if we need to account for loans by doing anything other than disregarding the receivable. Do we need to make sure that one times the outstanding loan balance is retained in the account (or even two times??) or is that just a rule that has to be met at the time the loan is originated?

Plan and Regs permit education expense for next 12 months. Next semester has not been billed yet. Anyone have a problem with estimates used as justification? Maybe it is not IMMEDIATE and heavy financial need if not billed yet, but plan uses safeharbor and this meets those requirements.

Sure, but they both have contact information for their paid services. They are a cheap as it gets, even if you were in DC and tried to do it yourself. That is a way better avenue that to try a request throught the DOL.

I usually think of concierge expenses as physician retainer or on on-call fee which would not be. However, the one you mentioned lists: • Health Risk Assessment including family and social history • Series of screenings including pulmonary function testing, cognitive evaluation, EKG, psychological evaluation, nutritional evaluation, fitness and activity status • Laboratory and diagnostic testing including, comprehensive metabolic panel, hs C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP), lipid panel, complete blood count, thyroid stimulating hormone assay, and urinalysis • The results of the physical examination and other important medical information are captured on a wallet-sized CD-ROM (the Personal Health Record), which the patient can keep on hand at all times • “myMDVIP,” an individualized patient web page . . . which all would be reimbursable except for the web page. Technically, you have to break down a mixed fee into its component parts, I believe.

I don't think you can get a PLR on something that can be ruled on in a determination letter application. No other avenues that I can think of though.

It is not a loop-hole because it is intended to raise revenue to bring the rest of the tax bill in under 70 billion. The government wants you to do it, so they get the tax money up front although it will cost the fisc in the long run. Recently, there has been a lot of debate about the wisdom of Roth treatment for high wage earners, so if you are in that camp, you probably aren't worried about a lot of people using the suspended agi limit.

freeerisa.com planeterisa.com

I have been getting spam about one for months. I assume that you are behind all of that? Thanks a bunch!

4 are listed under 213 in general: Renay France (202) 622-5020 John Sapienza (202 622-7900 Dan Cassano (202) 622-7900 Joyce Albro (202) 622-4950 Paul Tellier (202) 622-4950

I definitely shouldn't have typed "most" because I am sure that the 409A execption for split dollar is narrow in practice. It sounds like any NQDC contract will have to meet 409A or its exceptions independently of any underlying policies.