david rigby

Any interesting "compliment".

From the "Explanation of Provisions" Is this a regulatory end-run around a poorly-drafted statute? If so, let's hope the IRS puts some effort into due process, and encourages a correction to the statute.

Is this an acceptable result, to the plan sponsor? (I thought it was pretty common for vendors to handle both provisions. Seems like the sponsor should be dictating plan provisions, not the vendor.)

I think SoCal is onto something. PPA did not change accrual rules, but it may have been a convenient excuse to fix some flaw in the plan.

For such a statement, it is reasonable to expect an explanation.

Surely you jest. State law is never in such flux. ("vicissitude" is such a cool word.)

A couple of prior threads may provide interesting reading: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31094 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23284

Well stated!

Perhaps an implicit statement from the IRS that plans with less than $250K are not likely to face audit?

What does the plan say? What does the plan's loan policy say?

This is a vesting issue.BTW, this looks like a sale of assets. Is there a written agreement between buyer and seller that spells out expectations w/r/t the qualified plan?

Yogi Berra?

Any indications whether an appeal is coming? Possible?

Solely my opinion: it may be the opposite.

Might be some generic reading material on the IRS website, such as http://www.irs.gov/retirement/sponsor/arti...=155347,00.html. (I'm not endorsing or criticizing this material.) A possible red flag might be the likelihood that this Doc may have some employees in the future, or be part of a controlled group. To some degree, this issue applies no matter what type of plan is used. Experience ERISA attorney can help, as can experienced small plan actuary.

The IRS does not control the Gray Book. It is not written by the IRS. The Gray Book is owned, and copyrighted, by the Enrolled Actuaries Meeting. There is no online access. This is the relevant copyright notice from the 2009 Gray Book: Copyright © 2009, 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.

The plan sponsor will have significant responsibility, no matter what. It's his plan. I find it surprising that anyone would recommend against a DL filing. BTW, JFriedman, you stated that this dentist is your client. It may not be relevant to anyone reading here, but your post does not identify the nature of that relationship, and some responses may have assumed a particular relationship. Attorney, accountant, investment advisor, bookie, real estate agent, etc? (Not being nosy, just a comment.)

This actually went to court?!

This company likely needs the advice of an experienced ERISA attorney, and soon.

No.The best/simplest advice is given by GMK:

Simple perspective: since 12/17 is fourteen days prior to 01/01, I suggest the 8-1/2 month due date is 09/01. Just my opinion. In the 04/15/2008 proposed regs [1.430(j)-1], see subsections (b)(2) and (e)(7).

The phrase "retirement bonus" is uncommon (extremely). Is it possible that someone (management, owner, etc) used a term that is common in a different culture or country, which has a different meaning that its use here? (No disrespect intended, just thinking outside the box. As you may know, for example, "pension scheme" is common in the UK, but that phrase seems very awkward in the US.) - I think vebaguru asked the best question: "Is this really what they intended?" Until the true intent is understood, it may be difficult to know what step(s) to take next. - For example, if a true retirement plan is intended, then other ERISA issues will come up: written document, EE communication, who is covered, govt. filings, etc.

Could be an ERISA plan. Employee Handbook is probably less important than formal action of the company's Board of Directors. Anything?

I'm using the proposed regulations. What are you using?

Does a negative NC mean a negative accrual in the benefit? That seems unlikely. - If your software is giving a negative NC, it may be prudent to investigate why. - If the negative arises due to data corrections, I think that should show up in the funding target rather than the NC.