david rigby

Maybe. A non-electing church plan [iRC 414(e)], is exempt from IRC 411. However, the plan itself may have provisions that do not permit the proposed change.

Could there be confusion because the prior year did not require an audit?

Sorry, don't have a copy. I think that 2000 was the first year posted to the site. http://www.abanet.org/jceb/agency.html

A plan could also divide the allocation. For example, allocate $100 to all particicpants. Then allocate whatever is left using an age-weighted formula.

And it depends on what happens to the bonus. Since this Q was posted in the message board referring to Nonqualifed plans, its possible that you are asking about a bonus that was deferred. If so, that is a nonqualified plan; any comp that is deferred in a nonqualified plan should not be considered compensation under a qualified plan, at least not until actually paid.

See IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-20, Q&A 27. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

And here it is: http://benefitslink.com/articles/cashbalance.shtml

Not sure about the comment RE commingled assets. Could be a possible violation of the trust document? I second the comment RE competent legal advice.

Probably, but be careful. Relevant statute is ERISA sections 4021(b)(13) and 4021©(2). Note the requirement in 4021(b)(13) that the plan cannot have had more than 25 participants at any time after the enactment of ERISA.

There may be some help in prior discussions. Try using the search feature. One such example is http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=19833

Another similar discussion: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=15761

Thanks for being the first MGB. I'll guess it means "qualified taxfree fringe benefit", but that probably does not make sense. Even then, I still don't know what it is.

Try IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1, especially examples 5 and 6. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfrhtml...26cfrv5_00.html

IRC 412©(10) and Reg. 11.412©-12 use similar language: "eight and on-half months after the end of the plan year". I would have no problem interpreting that as 9/20/03 in your example.

Probably "due tomorrow" means a calendar year plan. If you want/need more time, file an extension, by 7/31.

On the chance that you are referring to a "wrap" arrangement, there have been a few discussions on these Message Boards. Here are a couple: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=18571 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=10445

Could you forward the names of other clients of this vendor?

This is the copyright in the 2003 Gray Book: Copyright © 2003, 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.

Gray Book 2003-25 What restrictions apply to the payment of benefits to an alternate payee under a QDRO where the participant is one of the "high-25" restricted HCEs and the payment of a current benefit does not escape the restriction using the 110% or 1% rules. In the specific case, the spouse has been awarded 70% of the participant's 12/31/01 accrued benefit and the spouse would like to choose the lump sum option. RESPONSE The high-25 restriction applies to the combination of the benefit paid to the participant and the spouse. Thus the limit must be used and, assuming the spouse is limited to 70% of what the participant could have received, a lump sum distribution cannot be made unless an arrangement for repayment is in place (see Rev. Rul. 92-76). The spouse can be paid up to 70% of the life annuity amount (plus SS supplement if there is one) without restriction. Copyright © 2003, 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.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelement

Highly recommended!

From Gray Book, Q&A 1999-30 In a 401(k) plan, does IRC Section 401(a) (17) preclude the following? A. Employee A earns $300,000 annually. He enrolls in 401(k) calendar year plan in August, after earning $175,000. He defers $10,000 for the balance of the year. B. Employee A earns $300,000 annually. He participates in a calendar year 401(k) plan making monthly deferrals of a flat dollar amount of 1/12 of $10,000 in 1998, even though his pay exceeded $160,000 before he was done making elective deferrals. C. Same as B, but deferrals are a percentage of pay (3.33333%). RESPONSE All of the above are acceptable, assuming the plan is not drafted in such a way as to prevent it. In situation C, for example, a plan provision permitting deferrals expressed as a percentage of compensation but not permitting deferrals expressed as a dollar amount could not accommodate deferrals on pay in excess of $160,000. Where the plan permits deferrals expressed as a dollar amount specified in the employee's salary reduction agreement, the reference to a percentage in the individual agreement is irrelevant. Copyright © 1999, 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.

As Blinky states, Rev.Proc. 2000-40 is not available. However, a funding method change might still be available thru application. BTW, depending on the adoption dates, you might be able to do your 2002 valuation recognizing the plan freeze (you did specify both a plan freeze and a plan termination didn't you?). A freeze might automatically change a method, such as from PUC to UC. But then there might be a different problem: the IRS has stated (Gray Book, Q&A 99-6) that it is unreasonable to use an aggregate funding method when the plan is frozen or there are no active participants. Here is an earlier discussion about this topic: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.p...50&hl=gray+book RSNOW refers to a Rev. Ruling. I think this is 81-136. http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglis...evrulmaster.htm

Late response, but .... No. I am not aware of any such online access. BTW, we pay for a copy when attending the EA (or other) professional meeting.

I agree with Harry O. I was in attendance at the EA Meeting session that discussed that Q&A. Quite a few in the audience just shook their heads at that interpretation. IRC 411(d)(6) explicitly focuses on paln amendments, yet IRS viewpoint seems to be otherwise.