david rigby

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.

Be very careful about bending the rules here. In all likelihood, it would be incorrect to assume "no harm in changing" just because the tax withholding has not yet been sent out.

I've seen lots of cases where the ER contribution was deposited into the wrong account/plan, either thru ER error or Trustee error. In all cases, when discovered, the amount was immediately tranferred to the correct account/plan, usually with a paper trail acknowledging this as an "oops". No auditor has raised any questions once the fix was made. However, Mike's cautions are worthwhile. It may be prudent to get advice of the plan's ERISA attorney, and/or advise the plan's auditor. But do it quickly; there is value in correcting the error as quickly as possible. Don't try to hide anything, and don't avoid written documentation of the problem and the fix.

Any possibility that the SS Administration will take this directly?

In most plans, this will already be determined by plan provisions.

Instead of looking for retribution, why not go to your ER today(!) and increase your deductions. If/when they tell you "no", then you politley point out the error, and restate the amount/percent you want deducted from each paycheck. Move forward, not backward. Just a suggestion.

Ask the plan administrator why your deductions stopped if it's not in the loan policy?

From the 2007 Green Book: Q&A 2007-1, Reporting: Distribution of Summary Annual Report To which plan participants must a summary annual report (SAR) be distributed? Participants as of the date that the SAR is distributed? Participants as of the end of the plan year for which the SAR is distributed? Individuals who were participants as of any date during the plan year for which the SAR is distributed? Individuals who were participants as of the beginning of the plan year for which the SAR is distributed? EBSA STAFF RESPONSE The Department’s regulation at 29 CFR § 2520.104b-10 provides that the plan administrator shall furnish annually a SAR to each participant and to each beneficiary receiving benefits under the plan within nine months after the close of the plan year or two months after the due date for filing the Form 5500 Annual Report/Report (including approved extension). The Department’s regulation at 29 CFR § 2520.104b-1(d) states that participant status for this purpose is governed by the definition of “participant covered under the plan” set forth in the Department’s regulations at 29 CFR 2510.3-3(d). It is the view of EBSA staff that a SAR must be distributed to each participant who was a participant covered under the plan at any time during the year to which the SAR relates and to each pension plan beneficiary receiving benefits at any time during the year to which the SAR relates. See 29 CFR § 2510.3-3(d) for information on when an individual is no longer a participant covered under the plan. EBSA staff noted that beginning with the 2008 plan year, the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Section 503, eliminates the SAR requirement for defined benefit plans subject to the pension funding notice requirement in ERISA section 101(f).

See explanation for Line 4j on page 35 of the 2008 instructions. Reference is to "current value". I read that to mean "the value at the time of the transaction", without regard to BOY or EOY value. Anyone else?

Minor point: the question in the title and the question in the original post are opposites.

I think there is no requirement to "credit" the CB against a quarterly contribution. I agree with Effen.

See IRC 436(f)(3). I see references to 60% and 80%, but not to 100%.

Deemed waiver of COB/PB is based on whether the plan provisions are impacted by the restrictions in IRC 436. If no restriction applies, then no deemed waiver applies. After determining mandatory waiver, if any, you might get to the question of a voluntary waiver.

Usually, where ERISA exempted certain categories of plans, it did so by stating that the exempted plan must comply with IRC xxx as it existed immediately prior to ERISA (signed into law 09/02/1974).

2K to 50K? Get qoutes from auditors?