david rigby

There may be other prior discussions about this. Try the Search feature. For example: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=21594 The usual starting point is to determine why; that is, did someone (who? plan sponsor, trustee, beneficiary, etc) do or say something that is the heart of the problem? The plan's legal counsel will advise whether the recieiving financial institution has any culpability; typically, death will have a bearing on whether an account is "frozen". Your message implies the possibility of fraud. Again, the plan's legal counsel will help determine that. You may also need better controls on timely notification. The trustee will probably have some suggestions in that area.

No. My comment was an observation that Sal is held in high regard by many who contribute to these Message Boards. No disrespect intended to any.

IRS Reg. 1.411(a)-5. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html Section (b) gives the periods of service that can be excluded. Subsection (3), including (3)(v), indicate that your PS plan would not be a "predecessor plan" and the service prior to establishment of DB plan can be ignored for the DB plan vesting service. But read carefully, subsection (3)(ii). Of course, there might be some very good reasons to be more generous.

Finally an end to one of the longest, and silliest, pi**ing contests yet seen on these Message Boards!

Is this an HCE? Ifso, could the ADP test results have limited the EE's contribution anyway? 402(g) limit could also be relevant.

Might depend on what the plan says. Is there any plan provision that could limit the EE to 5%, directly or indirectly? How long did this "incorrect" deduction go on?

How about having the sponsor say "Oops", reimburse the trust, and go on to more important things?

In most cases, it is advisable to avoid trying to do everything with one plan. A qualified plan's primary purpose is to accumulate retirement income. (Please no lectures about other "purposes.") To provide death benefits, the most advantageous vehicle is usually group life insurance. The answer may be different if there is the need (do not confuse "need" with "want") for permanent, rather than term, insurance. Perhaps the parties can accomplish there goal thru group life, rather than try to confuse the qualified plan's purpose.

How old are the parties? What is the purpose of of the parties in establishing this (or any) qualified plan? How much cash can they put into a qualified plan? Will the ER contribution be maintained for several years or is it temporary?

Perhaps we can suggest that Sal write some of the regs.

Upon further reflection, make sure you are not dealing with a situation where the spouse is really the second spouse. If the spouse (defined at the time benefits begin) dies, most plans will not permit a subsequent spouse to assume the survivor role under a J&S form of payment.

It is interesting that some people, in the interest of relieving suffering, suggest that the feeding tube be removed. Starvation is very painful, and is a prime example of suffering.

My mistake. I forgot about the EGTRRA change to the referenced Code section. 25 % is correct.

Don't forget about 415 limits.

Do you make that determination with reference to individual results, or to the underlying plan fomula?

What does the plan say to do with forfeitures? As you state, already deducted once. Do you have a problem with IRC 404(a)(3)(A)(i)? (My hunch is that if the answer is "yes", then you may have a problem in prior years.) BTW, for that mental block about 25%, see EGTRRA, and the plan amendment which adopted appropriate provisions.

BTW, a PEP could be designed (I think) with reference to final average comp, rather than total comp as described in Mike's post of 10/20/03.

Be careful. What does "failing the test" mean? If that refers to the ADP test, the solution is not (but could be in certain circumstances) to make a 3% T-H contribution.

If there is another plan, might also need comp to determine deductible limits.

You need a plan amendment. Don't forget the notice requirements under ERISA section 204(h). The practical impact of the amendment will be the later of the adoption date or it stated effective date. Thus, you can amend the plan with a retroactive effective date, but not so that it reduces accrued benefits that have been earned as of the amendment's adoption date.

Ridiculous. The employee did nothing wrong. If the 1099R was issued with the plan's EIN, the employee has no knowledge of anything wrong. The plan and employer should take care of this.

Why bother? Leave the PS plan as is, with future contributions reduced.

The concept of "maximum" is usually related to the term "deductible". A non-profit does not have deductions. However, there may be other constraints. For example, the non-profit might have a for-profit subsidiary.

GBurns is correct. However, if there is any "prohibition", it should already exist in writing, presumably on the same piece of paper that has your signature acknowledging it. If you took a "package", look at the written materials you already have. Even if such does exist, and is legit, it may be that your former employer is being unreasonable, to their own detriment. That is, your role of training very likely could be of benefit to them. If that happens, be sure to get a written statement releasing you from any restictions.

Carfeul what you ask for. An extension of this could be that plan sponsors no longer offer medical coverage for spouses. IMHO, that would be an undesirable trend.