david rigby

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".)

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