david rigby

Rev. Proc. 2002-64 can be found here.

Do a Search of the Message Boards using "demutualization".

Yeah. Many documents already include something about this. Look there first.

That payment will look like a lump sum. But not eligible for rollover, right?

You also might want to check plan provisions, of both plans.

Tom, I would do it that way.

How does one rollover a loan? Is this really a plan merger?

The Plan Administrator (capital letters are significant) or "Retirement Committee" may make reasonable administrative decisions, but those must be consistent (that is the reason such decisions will be (!) written) and are for the purpose of clarifying items that were not anticipated in the document. Of course, this assumes the plan document gives the PA such authority. Read carefully. In practice, you may find that some such items are significant enough to be elevated to the level of plan amendment.

Much depends on the precise nature of the "sale", and the precise nature of the employment relationship. (Sometimes words like "sold" or "merger" are used a bit too casusally, and may imply an inaccurate result.) If a stock sale, then likely not a distributable event.

I would prefer that both my files and the sponsor's files include documentation of why the 5500 was not filed. Need not be a dummy form, but could be a letter. The fee for this may be built into the service, whether you file no form, the EZ, or the regular 5500. If you were exempt from filing a 1040, wouldn't you want to write down the reason?

More important is the question of what funding pattern is developed by this combination of method and assumptions. Read your ASOPs.

Taxable, except that you have to roll from the 401(k) to the traditional IRA, then convert it to a Roth IRA. See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf For example, page 26.

Many sources available thru BenefitsLink: http://benefitslink.com/buzz/subjects/head...vebenefits.html Review or Search this discussion forum: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showforum=6

As I understand (3), it is a notice on the SSA, not in addition to the SSA.

Not sure I understand the Q. I believe 2 and 3 are distinct, but the timing of such notification is the same.

Well, it better be the Trustee, even if the Trustee is also the business owner. That person must always remember just what hat he/she is wearing.

Does this conflict with plan provisions?

Jim won't have much trouble figuring it out. BTW, when in doubt, BenefitsLink is a good place to begin a search for information. http://benefitslink.com/yellowpages/

Hold on here. What has frequency of deposits got to do with "more work"? The point of the quote posted above by austin is the money, not how often the recordkeeper has to post the deferrals.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24056

Written by Gary Lesser! Oh wait, he is "only" the editor. Some people are well-regarded in their chosen field. Doubly so for Lesser. Appleby is correct.

You can see that IRS Regulation here. http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-.../26cfrv5_02.tpl

My understanding is that a change in plan year must be adopted no later than the last day of the short PY. Short PY will create a year of vesting service. Be careful about your top-heavy determination(s). Be careful about any allocation for the short PY.

If you have not already done so, start with IRS Publication 590: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf (It is 100 pages long, so call 1-800-TAX-FORM and request a copy.)

...which gets to the issue of "what does reasonable mean"? As actuaries already know, any assumption will likely have a range of reasonable answers. I agree that 4.5% might be reasonable. However, it also may be possible to construct a set of parameters which create a reasonable range (for example) of 5% to 7%. If so, does that mean 4.5% might be described as "unreasonable"? (Maybe.) So much depends on the other parameters, plan design, investment mix, etc. No assumption should be evaluated entirely in a vacuum. Let's bring that back to the situation at hand: if the underlying investment return assumption was changed, it would be appropriate to look at other assumptions simultaneously. ("Look at" means "evaluate". It does not mean "change".)