david rigby

Try searching for "solo" here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?act=Search&f=

I agree. Perhaps you can inform the doc that the IRS is pretty sticky about the statutory maximums, and the law is quite clear that the prior plan must serve as an offset. Perhaps this will encourage the doc or his CPA to "locate" those records.

I agree with Blinky. Why does not the UCL provide a higher deductible amount?

If the desire is to provide different levels of benefits (or different early retirement provisions, or different disability provisions, etc.) within the same plan, that is also possible. Whether it is desirable is a separate discussion.

Many years ago, when I had opportunity to participate in an ESPP (not an ESOP) under IRC 423, my employer included the discount and any credited interest as taxable income. I think it was a 1099. The rules may have changed.

That is a question that should be directed to your attorney.

Assuming the 2 ERs are not related and could have no knowledge of the other plan, doesn't the burden fall to the individual? Remember that the deferrals are reported to the IRS on the W-2, so the "enforcers" will find out.

I would have no problem interpreting that plan language. IMHO, this plan provision is adequate (perhaps even preferable).

... assuming that is authorized in the plan document.

This is the discussion mentioned by Lori. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27766

You forgot taxes. The 10% is an excise tax for "early withdrawal", but the entire amount is also taxable. 20% withdrawal fee!!!! Wow. Seems like a lot to leave on the table. Does this amount decline over a few years? Should go to zero after a reasonable time. Only you can answer the question of whether the net (after fees and taxes) will be worthwhile. Depending on your bracket and state taxes, you might have only about $800 left. Most readers of these Message Boards will suggest you leave it where it is.

Cry all the way to the bank?

This site, http://www.naea.org/pract-index.cfm, can provide various IRS documents. Archived Revenue Procedures are included back to 1998. Click on “IRS Breaking News”. Also, check the IRS for archived information: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/content/0,,id=96710,00.html Always consider searching this website: http://benefitslink.com/search/index.php or searching only these Message Boards: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?act=Search&f= In particular, Rev. Proc. 94-41 has been superseded by 2004-15, which begins on page 47 of this document: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb04-07.pdf

I believe the RSA and LSA concepts are merely proposals.

An article on a growing trend to minimize the use/importance of resumes, in general. http://www.thirdage.com/news/articles/ALT0...4050203-01.html

The gist of this inquiry might be one or both of: 1. 125 deductions were taken in January even tho the Board did not adopt the plan until later. 2. the sponsor may want the new 125 plan to cover expenses incurred in January even tho the Board did not adopt the plan until later.

You migt try this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/ Search using the word demutualization.

January 31, 2005 Moody’s Bond rates Utilities Industrial Corporate Aaa NA* 5.22 5.22 Aa 5.58 5.36 5.47 A 5.65 5.44 5.55 Baa 5.82 5.96 5.89 Avg 5.68 5.50 5.59 MOODY'S DAILY TREASURY YIELD AVERAGES Short-Term (3-5 yrs): 3.41 Medium-Term (5-10 yrs): 3.89 Long-Term (10+ yrs): 4.52 MOODY'S DAILY PUBLIC UTILITY COMMON STOCK YIELD AVERAGES Price: 255.6 Yield: 3.93 New Dividend: 10.03

Service is usually awarded based on being an employee, which is in turn confirmed by employment records showing actual hours worked. If the "employee" has hours worked but no compensation, is that a violation of minimum wage laws? Alternatively, might someone conclude that the hours records were not accurate?

I'm not so sure about the "no" part. True, the IRS does not like claims of scrivener's errors. Perhaps there is a high burden of proof, but that does not throw them out entirely. Or am I overlooking something else?

Locate Revenue Rulings here: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglist/revrulmaster.htm

I smell what we actuaries call "anti-selection". Probably, this plan will experience a loss on this person as more service accumulates. One reason that most plans don't include such provision. I'm not suggesting the plan can or should do anything about it, just an observation.

Not very common in US. (Since EE contribs are pre-tax in Canada, this is more common. That is what I remember anyway; not sure if it is current.) Certainly this plan provision is permitted, but not necessarily good personnel practice. Very awkward to administer. For example, if an EE declines to contribute one year, then the plan's recordkeeping system will want to know that, so as to exclude that year from any benefit accrual; you can imagine how difficult that might be 20 years later. If the EE contribution feature is relatively new, then very possible it was used as a technique to "sell" a benefit increase to management/Board.

Agree.

Be careful. Did you change the plan year properly? I believe that the appropriate amendment must have been adopted by March 31, 2004.