John A

Is the Ogden Utah address used only for Form 5558, or are there other forms (5330?) that should be sent to that address?

Would most of these issues be avoided simply by freezing the money purchase plan prior to 12/31/01? Or are these situations where the employer wants to put in 25% and could only put in 15% if the money purchase plan is frozen prior to 12/31/01?

Per EGTRRA, spousal rollovers to qualified plans will be allowed for distributions after 12/31/01. What procedures should (must?) be followed when a participant and spouse are in the same plan? Can the spouse roll the money over from the plan to the same plan? Does a check have to be cut? If so, does the check have to be made out to the spouse, or can it be made to the plan? Can the money just be transferred without a check being cut as long as the reporting (1099-R) is done correctly?

Thanks, KJohnson. My question should have specified consent to pay in a form other than the QJSA form, rather than consent to pay at all. And I think you answered my question. As long as the waiver form is clear about what the spouse is waiving, the plan would not need to get consent each year to pay the RMD in a payment form other than a joint and survivor type.

Must a DC plan that is subject to QJSA rules (such as a money purchase plan) get spousal consent every year a Required Minimum Distribution is paid, or can the spousal consent for the first year cover all subsequent Required Minimum Distriubtions?

I agree with R. Butler. Although the language of 1.401(a)(9)-7 is confusing, both Q&A 1 and 2 indicate that a rollover does NOT affect the Required Minimum Distibution for either the distrbuting plan or the receiving plan (it will affect the receiving plan for the next year because it will increase the 12/31 account balance). The confusing language to me is in A-1 when it says "treated as a distribution by the distributing plan for purposes of section 401(a)(9), notwithstanding the rollover." However, I believe it is significant that it does NOT say "treated as a required minimum distribution." I don't think a rollover buys the participant any time at all, as I do not believe the rollover satisfies any part of the Required Minimum Distribution.

After the end of the GUST remedial amendment period (or after the 2001 RMD proposed regulations become effective), can partcipants still be given the option to defer distributions until termination of employment? Or was this option only allowed for plan documents that had not been amended to make the SBJPA change to Required Beginning Date? Asked a different way: Under the 2001 proposed regs, can a plan document specify that the Required Beginning Date will be ag3 70 1/2 for all employees, but that participants will be given the option to defer their Required Beginning Date to as late as termination of employment?

Does anyone have any idea how payroll companies will be handling the age 50 catch-up contributions? Will payroll companies be collecting participants' dates of birth? Will payroll companies that currently stop deferrals at the 402(g) limit now stop deferrals for plans that use catch-up at the 402(g) plus age 50 catch-up limit? How will payroll companies identify age 50 catch-up contributions that become age 50 catch-up due to the ADP limit?

I'm convinced on the top-heavy issue. But what about Bob R.'s points related to the compensation and vesting changes, as they relate to allocation of contributions and forfeitures?

If a plan does not adopt the model amendment to apply the 2001 proposed regulations in 2001, should a Required Minimum Distribution due by 4/1/02 be calculated under the rules prior to the 2001 regulations, or should the calculation use the 2001 proposed regulation rules? Given how the IRS clarified this for distributions due 4/1/01, I would say that the 4/1/02 distribution should be calculated under the "old" rules if the model amendment is not adopted. Agree? Disagree? Cite?

When would a participant in the following situation be required to start receiving Required Minimum Distriubtions? Plan doucment defines Required Beginning Date as April 1 following age 70 1/2 for all participants. Plan document will be amended by the end of the GUST remedial amendment period to leave the Required Beginning Date the same, but to state that participants reaching age 70 1/2 between 1/1/97 and 12/31/01 (or possibly 12/31/02) will be given the option to defer their distributions until termination of employment (in accordance with IRS guidance). If a participant that turned age 70 1/2 in 2000 elected to defer distributions until termination of employment, and the participant terminates employment in 2004, would the participant be required to start distribution prior to 2004? Under the 2001 proposed regulations, a plan document can specify that the Required Beginning Date is Age 70 1/2 for all employees. Under SBJPA, the Required Beginning Date had to be defined as the later of age 70 1/2 or termination of employment for non-5% owners. However, plans that were not amended for SPJBA could give participants the option to defer distributions. So which takes precedence, the employee's option to defer under SBJPA, or the 2001 proposed regulations? Would a participant who had made the election to defer be required to start distributions as soon as the 2001 proposed regulations become effective (in 2002 unless the model amendment is adopted)?

Thank you, both, but let me add the following: The IRS proposed regulations clarify that whether or not a deferral is reclassified as an age 50 catch-up contribution is done at the end of the plan year for ADP limit purposes. So we should not need to wait for December deferrals to tell whether or not the $600 over the 11/30/02 ADP limit is recharacterized as age 50 catch-up. Also, I completely agree that the $500 deferral in 2001 that was returned as 402(B) excess could not be an age 50 catch-up contribution. The issue to me is whether the whole $600 in 2002 deferrals that exceed the 11/30/02 ADP limit is recharacterized as an age 50 catch-up contribution due to exceeding the ADP limit, as it normally would be. Or if the fact that the $600 to be refunded can be reduced by the 2001 402(B) excess under 1.401(k)-1(f)(5)(i) also means that only $100 is treated as an age 50 catch-up contributon. Again, this determination is independent of whatever is deferred for December, 2002. I believe the answer is $100, but I would like that confirmed.

1) If deferrals of a plan participant would be limited by the 415 limit, and the plan provides for age 50 catch-up, the first deferrals above the 415 limit are age 50 catch-up contributions. Yes, a participant can get up to $41,000 in annual additions for 2001. 2) My belief is the amendment can be done by the last day of the plan year in which the age 50 catch-up contribuitons are allowed. I have seen one other opinion in print that held the same view, but I have not seen anything official from the IRS on this point.

After reading the age 50 catch-up proposed regulations, what questions have you come up with? Here's one I have: Say a participant has $500 returned as excess deferrals [402(g) excess] for 2001. The participant defers $10,600 from 1/1/02 to 11/30/02 in a plan that allows age 50 catch-up. The ADP limit for the plan year 12/1/01 - 11/30/02 turns out to limit HCEs to $10,000. Under 1.401(k)-1(f)(5)(i), only $100 would need to be distributed to the participant as a corrective distribution. Does the participant have $600 in catch-up contributions, or $100 in catch-up contributions, as of 11/30/02?

When an employer restores forfeitures for a rehired participant, is the forfeiture restoration counted as an employer contribution for any or all purposes? Should it be reported as an employer contribution on Form 5500, and if the plan terminated, on Form 5310? Should it be counted against the deductible limit? Is it counted as an annual addition? Any other areas where it is or is not considered an employer contribution?

If a plan is top-heavy for the 2001 calendar year (based on a 12/31/00 determination date), and the plan sponsor's fiscal year ends 8/31, when must the top-heavy contribution be made to avoid needing to use the top-heavy correction mentioned in Revenue Procedure 2001-17?

Is anyone aware of any law that will require Social Security Numbers to be removed from benefit statements in the future?

For a participant with a spouse more than 10 years younger, the preamble to the 2001 proposed regs says that a participant is "permitted" to use the longer period. The reg itself [1.401(a)(9)-5 Q&A 4(B)] says that a participant will use the longer period. Does a participant have a choice, as implied by the word "permitted" in the preamble, or must the participant use the longer period, as implied by the reg itself?

Is there any requirement for a plan sponsor to provide a plan participant with ... a history of their transactions in the plan? transaction details? employee's rate of return on investments? Or are the ERISA disclosure to participant requirements (SPD, SAR, statement of accrued benefits, etc.) the only ones that apply?

http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi...d=144&mode=read Just FYI: The above Correcting Plan Defects Q&A seems to indicate that the appropriate due date to use for Rev. Proc. 2001-17 purposes is the due date of the tax return, including extensions. However, no cite is given, and I still think there are good arguments for using: 1) Due date of the tax return, including extensions 2) Annual addition limitation deadline (30 days after) 3) 12 months after end of plan year (like QNECs) 4) There is no deadline - NO formal written guidance exists 5) If a deadline is explicitly stated in the document, it would overrule any of the above (if it was more restrictive - the plan document could not extend the time). I think the above also applies to a certain extent to other nonelective contributions - required or discretionary match, and profit sharing. Are there any penalties for missing the "deadline?" Anyone know why the IRS and DOL have never provided an official, formal, written answer to what the deadline is?

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=11052 The above thread discusses the due date for a top-heavy contribution. Do the same arguments apply to a required match contribution? What is the due date of a required match contribution? What are the consequences for failing to make the matching contribution by the required due date?

bzorc, In the plan you describe, were there any forfeitures, or was all match 100% vested immediately? If the plan provided for forfeitures, how did the plan provide for forfeitures to be handled (were forfeitures for an employee of one employer used exclusively for that employer - either to reduce future contributions for that employer, or reallocated to employees of that employer, or were forfeitures shared by all employers)?

A 5558 extension was filed with the wrong plan number. How should the 5500 be filed so that it is not considered late? We called the PWBA and the person at the PWBA said they did not know and gave us a number for the DOL. The person at the DOL said to file the 5500 as an amended return and attach a letter of explanation. It does not make sense to me that we would check the amended return box when the 5500 has never been filed in the past. Has anyone else had this situation? If so, how did you complete the 5500?

Who generally files (or is repsonsible for filing) the Form 5500 required for a Master Trust Investment Account (MTIA) as a Direct Filing Entity (DFE)? Is this filing generally done by the regulated financial institution that serves as trustee or custodian? Is this filing generally done by TPAs? Does anyone have experience with Form 5500s filed by MTIAs? I would appreciate any information on this subject that is not directly out of the Form 5500 instructions. Thanks.

When a plan sponsor is using an IRS correction program and has filed with the IRS to determine the appropriate correction, how should the 5500 be completed while the appropriate correction is pending? Should the 5500 reflect the expected correction, or should the 5500 be completed ignoring the expected correction? Should the 5500 later be amended once the correction is completed?