david rigby

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".)

Perhaps we are dealing with a typo? 457 Plans?

I agree with Blinky and Effen. But I wonder if Bob_DB has the facts correct. Is compensation reduced by Normal Cost, no matter how calculated? Might there already be some "definition" or parameters that assist in this determination? Even if this does not pan out, perhaps Bob_DB could point out (to whomever) that such offset should not be adjusted for changes in actuarial assumptions.

What I know about such matters will not fill a thimble. But aren't you doing exactly this? BTW, if you want to protect some of your "inheritance", ask him to give it to you now. Your needs go way beyond this Message Board. Probably need an attorney well versed in estate matters, and knowledgeable about tax treaties.

Some of the prior discussion threads that may be relevant. In the first link, Everett provides some of his research: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20346 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=24738 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22251

What say the plan(s)?

We'll let the attorneys weigh in, but I understand that a partnership may exist by default, and does not require a written agreement.

Personal life? I don't understand. Actually, I thought this year's EA meeting was very good. Got lots of stuff to share with my colleagues (and not just the pens from the exhibitors), and lots of stuff to read. In case you haven't noticed, I already posted a Gray Book Q&A on a different discussion thread.

http://www.nj.gov/treasury/pensions/pers1.htm

Of course, the Gray Book is always unofficial, but ... QUESTION 2005-14 Deductible Limit: Current Liability Interest Rates for Minimum and Maximum Purposes For 2004 and 2005 plan years, PFEA requires the use of 90% to 100% of the corporate bond rate for calculating current liability for minimum-funding purposes. For purposes of calculating the maximum-deductible contribution, § 404(a)(1)(F) — as added by PFEA — states that “an employer may elect to disregard” the new provisions providing for the use of the corporate bond rate. For 2004 and/or 2005 plan years, may an employer calculate the minimum-required contribution using 100% of the corporate bond rate, and simultaneously calculate the maximum-deductible contribution using 90% of the 30-year Treasury rate? RESPONSE Yes, the ability to calculate the 2004 (or 2005) maximum-deductible contribution using 90% of the 30-year Treasury rate is not dependent upon the rate used for 2004 (or 2005) minimum-funding purposes. Standard Gray Book Footnote: The above Response is a summary, prepared by representatives of the Program Committee, of the oral responses to the question posed to certain staff members of the Treasury and IRS, which represent only personal views of the individuals who provided them. Accordingly, the Response does not necessarily represent the positions of the Treasury or the IRS and cannot be relied upon by any taxpayer for any purpose. Copyright © 2005, 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 diskette 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.

Most of this discussion is correct, but insufficient. It is not enough to merely look at the assets (current or expected). Recall that (under ERISA) the plan sponsor is responsible for selecting the funding method, and the EA is responsible for selecting actuarial assumptions, in that order. For example, if the sponsor selects a method that the actuary believes will provide contributions that are too low, the actuary must then select assumptions that will provide for adequate funding of the plan. Please see: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23357

I have personal experience with only one such transaction. the price was approximately 1 times annual revenue. However, many many variables, such as - whether to average over more than one year, - exactly what services are provided, - whether those services will still be needed by clients and prospective clients, - what role will selling principals have after the sale, - stock or cash? - technology of the buyer vs. the seller, - physical property, - is real estate involved? - leases? - etc.

AS you state, ERISA does not cover this plan. Vesting provisions are contained in the plan, and determined by the plan sponsor (i.e., the state). No federal statute will change that, nor is one likely.

Bizarre. However, mbozek's comments will probably be the most relevant.

See http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf Generally, 1. Contributions to a regular IRA are deductible, and amounts paid from the IRA are taxable; 2. Contributions to a Roth IRA are not deductible, but amounts paid from the Roth IRA are not taxable.