david rigby

Just in case you haven't included this, the 415 dollar limitation accrues over (minimum 10) years of participation (in your case, that begins 1/1/2011), while the 100% of pay limitation accrues of (minimum 10) years of service.

Remember that the role of the Internal Revenue Code (and corresponding regulations) is to define boundaries (ie, minimums and maximums), not to define every piece of a puzzle or procedure. With limited exceptions, you will not find "approved methods" in the law.

It depends. When you say, "...comp prior to 1/1/2011...", are referring to a plan freeze? If so, review the terms of the amendment that executed that freeze.

Look here: http://www.irs.gov/uac/e-News-Subscriptions-2

Advisory Opinions here: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/AOs/main.html#2001 You want 2001-02A.

Does 1.430(d)-1(d) provide any help?

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fsDBPannualfundingnotice.html

A 2011 contribution cannot be put on the 2012 SB. Was it deducted in 2011? If so, it is a 2011 contribution for both minimum and maximum. If the contribution was more than the deductible amount, see IRC 4972. The actuary should already be very familiar with these issues. The "excess" seems rather unusual. Might be reasonable for the actuary to double-check all calculations.

If the valdate is not the first day of the PY, your Q is answered in Reg. 1.430(g)-1(d)(2) http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=ed50d185a6429202524ec5215ff8a967&rgn=div8&view=text&node=26:5.0.1.1.1.0.3.306&idno=26

I would not use that phrasing. See regulation 1.430(d)-1(f)(4)(iii).

First, read the document so you understand whether the TH minimum continues to accrue. Second, make sure you have not overstated (or understated) any participant's accrued benefit.

I agree with other comments. There is an implication that "becoming" top-heavy will cause discord. Does the owner really think the other employees don't already know he has "the lion's share"?

Have you checked the 411 regs?

Slow down just a bit. Not all plans permit a 50% deferral. If not permitted by this plan, there might be 2 mistakes: filling out the form incorrectly, and processing a deferral not permitted by plan provisions.

No, I did not say that. Check the statute and regs to identify what is required on the 6057(e) statement, and when.

Several previous discussion threads on similar topics. You might try the Search feature, using a keyword such as "missing" or "locator".

When (or if) the participant ever gets put on a Form SSA, he/she must also be given a statement describing that deferred benefit (DB or DC). See IRC 6057(e). Note that certain information is required for this purpose, which may not have been included on a previous statement.

The time it takes for the IRS review serves to extend the completion deadline for the entire termination process; it has no bearing on the PBGC 60-day period. Therefore, if the 60-day period has expired (without action), the sponsor can proceed with the process of buying annuities, paying lump sums, etc. Important caveat: sponsor might want to wait for D-letter, or might be required by plan document to wait for D-letter. Also, don't think you have to do everything at once. For example, buying annuities for existing retirees might be permissible under the plan at any time, so it might be helpful to get that out of the way.

Could be some apples and oranges. The PBGC "no action" period of 60 days means no actions related to plan termination. However, any normal plan operation should continue without variation, including initiating new retirements (for example). Think of it this way: during the 60-day review period (or later if extended), there is no plan termination.

Doesn't plan B have to do something also?

Just make sure the document carefully defines both, without any overlap? BTW, another payment event could be plan termination (with proper 409A deferral).

Is someone (the appointer) being sold something (the appointee)?

Who really paid for it? the plan? State Street? Perhaps SS is protecting itself, not necessarily the plan? or the sponsor's employees?

Peter, comment from the outside looking in. In several working environments, I've encountered business owners who are reluctant to care about the details or deadlines of plan administration. I've tried to enlist the aid of the accountant and/or attorney, on the assumption that the owner is likely to trust that person more than me as unbiased. In your case, you appear to be the attorney, so my hunch is that this owner will not treat a TPA with the same level of trust. That does not bode well for your situation. Sorry for the pessimistic outlook. That said, where is your client located? Perhaps a close geography might reveal some possible help.

There is no harm in asking why it's important for her to attend. If the response is "because I said so", that tells you all you need to know about the future.