david rigby

... but don't give the state any portion of the 5500 that is not open to public inspection.

No expert I, but is it possible that the IRS is not buying that this was a mistake? Any possibility that the 412(i) plan, under its own terms, is not a valid plan because of the discrimination issuers? [OK, that's wishful thinking. ]

Good advice above. Just an opinion: don't assume a conspiracy or gross incompetence, but they may have made a mistake in the first, or the second, communication to you. Consider a review of whatever documentation is involved, just to make sure there really was an "approval" (or perhaps only an acknowledgement of receipt?). If the prior documentation gave an impression of "approval", there may be no harm in asking (in writing) why they now have a different approval process.

Anything changed since this? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=28203

Shouldn't this letter come from the Plan Administrator?

Disqualification means a plan no longer qualifies for favorable tax treatment (generally, deferred taxation of any ER contributions and earnings thereon). Therefore, the tax consequence of disqualification is immediate taxation to the participants of the current value of benefits. Ongoing earnings in the trust would also be taxable. Disqualification does not automatically create a distributable event or plan termination, although the plan may be written to incorporate the latter.

www.freeERISA.com posts 5500's. Generally, they post (for free) the two most recently available forms, and you can purchase others. However, they may not yet have the "latest" form.

I recommend the Search feature. Try keywords such as "state tax" or "state withholding" (with quotes) or other as you desire. Be warned that any link you encounter could (very easily) be out-of-date.

ERISA section 3(39) does not seem to preclude this definition. Review Rev. Ruling 81-159, which addressed a 52/53 week plan year. It may be possible to define the plan year using the last paydate, but this RR implies it must apply for all purposes (vesting service, etc); unlikely that the sponsor could use that definition unless it's in the plan. I might want a letter ruling on it, but that's just me.

In many ways, we are fortunate to have a few announcers today who carry on the great traditions; at the top of my list are Joe Buck (clearly, today's "gold standard") and Joe Morgan.

A CY begins January 1 and ends December 31. But you knew that.

First, to what year does the excise tax apply? If 2009, is there really an unpaid minimum? If prior to 2009, I think the 10% portion of an excise tax cannot be waived (that's the position advocated by the IRS).

Even if no ER contributions, don't forget about possible reallocation of forfeitures, depending on plan provisions.

You are the first to imply that my autograph is worth having. I'll sign your book, but if you post it on the internet, be prepared to hear from my vast staff of attorneys.

Uh oh! Missed allocations?

Why would you treat this person more "harshly" than a new hire?

Not the mantra of the IRS or DOL.

Not already in the plan?

Separate plans? BTW, there may be a smell test: Is this using a for-profit entity to provide benefits to the non-profit EEs?

Ditto.

IMHO, a publicly available signature is not acceptable.

Lots of opportunities for fraud.

According to Thomas, the only action on HR 4126 is referring it to the Ways and Means Committee, November 2009. I found no mention of it on the W&M committee website.

Likely, the k-plan has an interest in the GIC, rather than vice versa. Review the GIC contract to determine what, if any, surrender charges apply. A more interesting question might be why the sponsor wants to terminate the plan. Readers of these Message Boards have noticed several claims of a sponsor seeking to terminate the plan when the underlying reason was dissatisfaction with investment results or administrative procedures. Curing the problem(s) can often be done without plan termination.

Just my 2 cents: the required contribution is zero, which differs from "not subject to 412".