david rigby

No. That's the way it is.

According to footnote 5 on page 12 of the Form 5500 instructions: A pension plan is exempt from filing Schedule R if each of the following four conditions is met: - The plan is not a defined benefit plan or otherwise subject to the minimum funding standards of Code section 412 or ERISA section 302. - No in-kind distributions reportable on line 1 of Schedule R were distributed during the plan year. - No benefits were distributed during the plan year which are reportable on Form 1099-R using an EIN other than that of the plan sponsor or plan administrator. - In the case of a plan that is not a profit-sharing, ESOP or stock bonus plan, no plan benefits were distributed during the plan year in the form of a single sum distribution.

The first order of business might be to re-examine the 412(i) plan. Looks pretty expensive.

"purchase"? Can Plan A be amended to merge in Plan B, and also recognize B employees' service prior to the merger date? Yes. But suppose employees of A are already getting service only from plan inception date. Would the B employees get all prior service, even if prior to the plan inception date? (Employees of A might not be happy in that case.) But you might be considering a different set of facts. If so, please post.

If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?

Find a Revenue Ruling here: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglis...evrulmaster.htm A funding waiver is another route to consider, at least in the future, but it appears to be too late for the facts given (no later than 2-1/2 months after end of plan year). BTW, I'm not sure about rcline46's comment about "ANY reduction in accrued benefit." IRC 411(d)(6) refers to plan amendments.

With respect to "audit", it appears the prior response was focusing on IRS. However, if the plan is subject to independent audit, it seems likely that loans will be a topic of scrutiny (with an IRS audit as well). My guess is that the independent auditor will find this discrepancy. Plan should obtain ERISA counsel.

Prior discussions on these message boards have cited the federal statute Defense of Marriage Act. I am not aware of any definition of "spouse" in either ERISA or IRC, but the intention of DOMA appears to be that a marriage, for federal purposes, is between one man and one woman, no matter where a "ceremony" is performed. The plan needs legal advice on this.

Agree with Blinky. I believe the correct reference is IRC 411(d)(6). The ability of an owner to waive a portion of a benefit is from the PBGC, and is directed only to plan terminations.

Don't forget that employee deferrals cannot be made until after a plan is actually adopted. Retroactive effective date is not good enough.

Good point. Why weren't the deferrals (if that is the correct term) deposited promptly?

Cool! http://soa2.syn.net/Stats/stats_employee.html Thanks, MGB

You can also see "Tax on Early Distributions" on page 27 of this IRS publication: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf

Perhaps a bit too obvious, but Dr. B should be getting ERISA legal advice from his/her ERISA attorney.

To clarify rollover Q, after-tax rollovers are now permitted, under 2001 tax law change. Prior to that, after-tax amounts were never eligible for a rollover.

Yes. But don't be mislead; "401(k)" is merely a special feature that can apply to a 401(a) plan. The plan you describe - after-tax contribs + match - is what we used to call a "thrift plan" (actually, we still call it that). It precedes what is now known univerally as "401(k)", which is not a plan type but a plan provision that permits pre-tax contributions.

Another source of QDRO info might be this: http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=...elations_orders

.... when there is an unfunded ABO. if the assets exceed the ABO at disclosure date, you don't create a balancing item the other way.

As usual, BenefitsLink is the place to look first. Hyperlinked version of the table of contents here: http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2003-44.shtml But scroll to the bottom and find the link to pdf version.

I can't find any exception. However, if this is a "continuation" or spinoff of another plan, there might be an exception. It escapes me why anyone would design a plan with the seeming intention of maximizing the premium. So many ways to avoid this.

Ah, there's the rub (whatever that means). Check the QDRO for any information on this, and any potential definition "adjustment" for the time between a specified date and the actual segregation date.

Amendment: sure. Restatement: not necessary.

Just to clarify, my Q about timing of the proposed deduction still stands; enough ambiguity in the orginal post. I would recommend that the plan sponsor forget about a waiver. Since a waiver is for temporary business hardship, it is highly unlikey the IRS would consider this either temporary or hardship.

Plan provisions might state that the plan will automatically be terminated in case of a bankruptcy filing, although there could also be some additional conditions attached.

Need some more facts. The $50K is the 2002 PY contribution, but when is it being deducted?