david rigby

I think SoCal is on to something.

http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans

There is no reference in the 5500 instructions to IRC 404. The SB is all about 412/430/436. It's difficult to see why the actuary would include a contribution on the SB that may draw attention to something that might be interpreted as a violation of IRC 4972. Can't you just take the "excess" and treat it as part of the next year's contribution? Notice that 4972 refers to "non-deductible". It does not say "non-deducted".

davsun, it appears you may be new to these Message Boards. Welcome. There is a Board whose focus is QDRO's, http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showforum=89 Reviewing that Board will provide 100% support from the advice given by the other comments above.

Agreed. Ambiguity on this subject is unacceptable.

Yes, funding and plan termination are different. The MAP21 rates apply only to funding issues, and have no effect on 417e lump sum values.

Hope this is not a copyright violation. Here is the information from the link above:

Not to imply you can't read, it may be prudent to review the plan definition of compensation, just to make sure.

Perhaps it's just me, but the IRS comment about Title I seems to be pretty important, if you are trying to dot i's and cross t's. In the real world, it seems unlikely either agency will care about this point (they have much bigger fish to fry). Prudent advice to the plan sponsor will probably err on the conservative side.

"We"? "Know"? As above answers state, the plan can "know" only via DRO, and can act only via QDRO.

Caution. An owner-only plan is likely to have 100% immediate vesting. AtA's answer is correct, but what if the plan already has a vesting schedule more generous than the TH schedule? Then the TH vesting provision is automatically covered.

For those without a copy, here is Gray Book 95-8: QUESTION 1995-8 Funding -- Contribution Due Date if Occurs on Non-Business Day When the filing date of a tax or plan return would fall on a Saturday, Sunday or Public holiday, IRC 7503 provides that the due date is extended until the next business day. Does such extension also apply to the due dates for contributions under IRC 412? For example, April 15, 1995 falls on a Saturday? This issue has become even more relevant under the RPA, since a 10% excise tax can be imposed on a quarterly liquidity requirements that is only one day late. RESPONSE: The grace period for weekends and holidays found in code section 7503 applies only with respect to filing, not with respect to contributions. Also, minimum funding is not only a Code provision but also an ERISA Title I issue. Title I does not include provision comparable to Code section 7503, so even if the weekend rule did apply to the Code minimum funding requirement, it does not apply to the similar requirements in ERISA Title I. Copyright © 1995, Enrolled Actuaries Meeting All rights reserved by Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. Permission is granted to print or otherwise reproduce a limited number of copies of the material on the CD-ROM for personal, internal, classroom, or other instructional use, on the condition that the foregoing copyright notice is used so as to give reasonable notice of the copyright of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. This consent for free limited copying without prior consent of the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting does not extend to making copies for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for inclusion in new collective works, or for sale or resale.

transfer of assets is irrelevant. ownership of assets is relevant.

Some other perspective (ie, Sal Tripodi) sees this as a gray area. See the discussion of "Weekend/Holiday Rule" in the ERISA Outline Book (for example, begins on page 1A.215 of the 2011 edition). In particular, see paragraph B.1.a "IRS informal ruling on minimum funding deadline".

BTW, about an hour after the IRS emailed Notice 2012-61, they sent another email with a Revised version. To verify that you have the correct one, look at the last page: should be three footnotes. (As of this writing, I don't have a link, but we'll probably get one within a couple of days.)

1.415(b)-1(a)(5)(ii)

Not sure I would describe the SSA service as "nominal expense".

http://benefitslink.com/src/irs/notice-12-61.pdf

A partial termination is (generally) a facts and circumstances test. First, the IRS presumes all terminations during the appropriate time frame are subject to the deemed vesting requirement. Second, the plan sponsor has the ability to document other facts that might exclude some of those terminations. For example, an employee who died (but this might trigger 100% vesting anyway). 1. Since a partial termination (usually) provides only 100% vesting, the appropriate notification is that which you would provide another VT. 2. If your "event" begins this week, it need not be retroactive to the beginning of the year, and can extend into a subsequent PY. Several prior discussion threads on this topic, which you can find using the Search feature.

Most practitioners already are aware of the arbitrary nature of things that come out of DC. Still, it's nice that the court said so.

...yet.

Data as of 31-AUG-12 (Friday) Moody's Daily Long-term Corporate Bond Yield Averages Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA 3.36 3.36 Aa 3.50 3.48 3.49 A 3.86 3.88 3.87 Baa 4.73 4.82 4.78 Avg 4.03 3.89 3.96 Moody's Daily Treasury Yield Averages Short-Term (3-5 yrs) 0.44 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs) 1.07 Long-Term (10+ yrs) 2.23

Original post stated "...pull $12k from the 2 HCEs accounts..." Of course, you cannot remove something from a participant's account, once properly allocated.

http://benefitslink.com/src/irs/revproc2012-35.pdf

Effective after 08/31/2012, the IRS will no longer permit its letter forwarding progam to be used by plan administrators seeking to locate missing participants. Rev. Proc. 2012-35.