movedon

Re ABT, check out Reg. 1.403(b)-5(a)(2) and the ERISA Outline Book, footnote 138 on page 1B.498 (2009 ed.) Re 415, look at Reg. 1.403(b)-4(b), Code Section 415(k)(4) and EOB p. 1B.512 (2009 ed.)

Sorry, I missed that part of the original post. IIRC, a 403(b) account is considered individually owned for 415 purposes, so the 403(b) plan contributions and the 401(a) plan contributions of the non-profit would not be combined for 415 purposes (i.e., separate limits for the two plans). However, if an employee of the non-profit owns a business of his own (at least 50%, I think), then any qualified plan sponsored by that business would share a 415 limit with the 403(b) account. Keep researching - I'm not 100% sure of my memory on this. Of course, the individual had one 402(g) limit.

I don't think 403(b) deferrals are ever included in any nondiscrimination test, including the average benefits test.

Yes, please elaborate, Tom. That's a new one on me.

I, for one, am shocked and dismayed by all of the populism and socialism going on around here. What next, devil worship?

Hey, Peanut Butter Man - what kind of source do you have re an extension?

Extension for what - the deadline to adopt the interim amendment? Isn't that statutory with PPA?

I think it came out on the 16th last year.

My memory of this issue is fuzzy, but I don't think the short year exception means Plan X doesn't need an audit. I think it just says the audit for the short year can be done in combination with either Plan X's previous or subsequent full year audit. Also, I think there has been some debate over the years whether Plan Y's audit for the year of the merger would be considered "Plan X's subsequent audit." I would think not.

Wait for it... this is gonna be awesome.

Good question. It's certainly being contributed after the 415 crediting deadline. On the other hand, could it be exempt from that deadline as a "corrective contribution?"

Anyone have any experience with welfare plans that go back and forth across the 100 participant threshold? Do you get letters from IRS or DOL in the "under 100" years when you don't file a 5500?

You're welcome, although I think there are more questions than answers here. That's 403(b) for you. I'll quit while I'm ahead.

Was the teacher in the other account deferring to it while employed by the current school prior to the existence of the "new plan," while no other employee of the current school was eligible to participate in a 403(b) plan? Hopefully not. Ignoring that, if the current employer is forwarding deferrals to the account, then I think the account is part of the new plan. Assuming this is a non-ERISA plan and there is no plan document that limits the participants' vendor options, maybe that's not such a big deal. Maybe the account entered the new plan as a "rollover" and is now receiving deferrals. The account title should reference the name of the plan of which it is a part. Some would argue that limiting the participants to a single vendor would make the plan an ERISA plan.

Messy. Are the contributions to the old account being deposited there by the teacher or by the school (the current employer)? How is that account titled ("Old School 403(b) Plan FBO Mrs. Teacher" or "Current School 403(b) Plan FBO Mrs. Teacher" or something else)?

That's a pretty good summary.

Yes, the UL limit is 25%. Whole life is 50%. No limit on the rollover.

I don't think the scope of the audit has anything to do with SAS 70s and controls. If no one can/will certify the accuracy of the trust statements, the audit will be full scope. The auditors will request information they need from the Trustee, who may then need to request it from American Funds.

Does this requirement (no NRA <62) apply to a profit sharing plan that contains merged money purchase assets?

I believe so - IRC 415(k)(4).

He owns the business that sponsors the PSP? The 403(b) plan is treated as sponsored by him, not the hospital, for 415 purposes, so the two plans share one 415 limit.

Tom- what did you mean by "you can aggregate a plan with a non related company"?

I think the issue is - can a plan that can pass testing without an amendment choose to fail and then correct with an amendment. I vote no.

Assuming the "minimal involvement" determination is correct, yes.

Have to go with G-man on this one - sounds like it's either coerced or a CODA.