Below Ground

John, whenever I see an article on qualified plans in the "popular press", like Time, I know that at best it will be laughable. It's to bad they rarely get the facts straight on any topic. Don't get too worried or mad since their readership is shrinking.

I would "vote" for the 415 Excess in this case.

It is my understanding that signature MUST be original, and can use either black or blue ball point pen. Anything else could be rejected. While I did not find anything specific about the signature in current instructions (there was in years past), instructions about completing forms by hand are "insightful". Apparently, the machine that reads forms has (or had) limitations. Copied from instructions with regard to forms completed using pen... "Use only the official hand print form. Enter only a single letter or number within each box using blue or black ink..." While I admit I may be too conservative in my opinion, I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

My understanding agrees with WDIK, so chalk up 2 with that reply.

I think the Regs say round to nearest hundreth. I don't know where, I just remember that being the case. I like playing goal. Besides, I have no wind. Last July 4th I did a really dumb thing. I was playing goal for some kids in the driveway at the big picnic for the 4th. Well, some 14 year old took a big slap shot and got me right in the eye. The same eye I had an implant put in for cataracts. That really hurt! All turned out okay, but it took about a day before I could see clear again. We will watch your Hawks with anticipation.

Belgarath - Sounds like you are doing the common sense thing. Why wasn't it done that way in the 1st place?

Rcline46 - Thanks for that insight. I was not aware. Sieve - When I coach I sometimes play goalie (not well), and am very much aware of the deceitful nature of the guy between the posts. Blackhawks? Why such a "dark horse, long shot"? Sort of like the Cubs, right?

Thanks rcline46. I think Sieve was ready to hip check me; especially since I prefer the Penquins! Could we be looking at 2 cup for Mario's team?

Sorry.

Assuming this is NOT 1st year of plan... A) Yes. B) Remedial Distribution are counted as in-service distributions for future years. My post reflects materials used for ASPPA DC-3 Test, as I recall.

We do a lot with MEPs. Mr. Simmons is 100% right. In fact, ALL testing is based on the "units" (as defined by Mr. Simmons) as separate enties, including Top Heavy. If, however, the TH Minimum is not provided to a unit that is Top Heavy, ALL units must do the Minimum. Just thought I would add that for you.

Zman: 1) Since trust appears to be below $250K, probably not. Of course, there are other criteria. For example, do you have ownership in another firm that could result in a controlled group? 2) W-2 Employees, which is what you have with an S-Corp, have a deadline on deferrals of 1/15; meaning, that deadline is long gone for 2008. Of course, if you are NOT trying to maximize benefits, funding employer contribution is more valuable given the "exemption" from payroll taxation; which does not apply to deferrals. (Perhaps use of salary deferrals is not right for you this year?) Oh yeah, your owner distributions (S Dividends) are not compensation for plan purposes. Be sure to keep that in mind. 3) There is no law that says you must use a TPA. However, it looks like you have quite a few questions. This is somewhat like when you are sick, the law does not say you must go to a doctor. Of course, having a doctor's insights could literally prove to be life saving. (Who knew it was bird flu?) Mess up with this Plan and I suspect that the $400 will seem to be a real bargain. Penny wise and pound foolish? You decide. Good luck.

Oh my. No reply seems appropriate.

Just wanted to add a word of support to the position of Bird. Small firms have issues like cash flow that might not be as important to a large company Holding off until all contributions are deposited allows for a benefit to be processed only once; thereby reducing costs of the Plan. I really don't think that a blanket conclusion on this topic is appropriate. One needs to look at the plan sponsor and apply a design that work for that firm given the objectives held for the plan. Then, make sure that people are clearly notified on timing parameters before they start. Is the plan for retirement, or is it a short term savings account? The bottom line is that the plan terms should allow for the best retirement plan given the capabilities of the plan sponsor.

I typically do as Tom suggests as this make clear issues like limitation year, 415 limits, etc... A big benefit is that any profit sharing can be based on full year compensation. Of course, the situation may call for a short year. This could be related to some concern with respect to eligibility? Anyway, the key element is when are deferral provisions effective.

Ditto. Nothing like piling on?

J4FKBC - Hmmm, I think you are right! I didn't even think about that. I said it not so much as a "tag" as a "here's my two cents" for what it is worth. The "not for profit question" has, in my experience, been subject to heated debate. I'm not sure which is right with 3/15 versus 9/15 versus 10/15 versus 12/31 (all for calendar). I tend to agree with the 9/15 date as I believe that ties into the IRC 415 Limits.

I think it is important to note that the contribution must be deposited by the due date (with extensions) of the tax return. You don't have to wait to file that tax return. You don't have to wait to file the 5500 either. I do agree that the "burned comment" of Bird, who I also agree with on whether to hold or file, is worth consideration. But then again, what do I know.

Thanks Bill. I came across this while looking up something else. Guess I didn't "track" this topic. Anyway, thanks!

I suggest that it boils down to what does "deemed distribution" mean. I would count both since it is safer to do, in my opinion.

It sounds like the reason this client is available for your services is that they may be less than desirable as a client. There are a couple of "traps" you may run into. As one TPA to another... The old TPA would have been required to amend for Final regs and for the 2006 cumlative changes, and possibly for a change in the classes, as the 2007 annaul valuation has 7 classes when the doc I have has 4. How do you know that the prior TPA "was required to amend"? Does this client have a contract with the old TPA that spells out they are required to do that? Perhaps the service was offered, but not accepted. Do all your clients always respond back with documents needed, and accept all services you offer? The reason I point this issues out is that it is dangerous to assume that the prior TPA is responsible or at fault. If you automatically assume that you may find yourself with a client that just isn't worth it. Believe me, I know. One client came to me with so many problems it would make your head spin. Of course, everything was because of the prior TPA. Well, to make a long story short, this client never returns data requested, or follows any advice given. They basically do whatever they want, regardless of related regulations or plan terms. Oh, and they don't pay their bills. If only I had know, I would not have accepted this client. Now I am stuck with the wonderful client, hoping against hope that I will get paid for the last 3 years of service. Yes, the problems were fix. Yes, we did get the work done. Of course, due to data collection problems, providing service was 10 times harder than needed to be. You asked for "thoughts". I agree whole hearted with K2retire. Approach with caution, and don't simply assume you have a bad prior TPA. While that may be true, anytime I hear that the client has nothing to give you, I'm pretty sure the problem is with that client. Being a little disorganized should not be a crime. Being utterly irresponsible should be, and usually is. :angry: Good luck either way.

You can also use to fund other member's benefit which may be short and need to be trued upward.

Also no QNEC or QMAC. Don't forget those 2.

Depending upon what the plan document says, the Safe Harbor Match will either be based on the per payroll period pay, or subject to annual true-up. You need to check the specific plan document.

The definition of Compensation under most plan documents will say no "S-Corp Dividends" as that is the law.