PensionPro

I was confused by GBurns saying they are not associated with the religious organization which seemed contrary to the OP so I was checking if I was missing something. You guys are right, ESOP Guy and JPod, we have to celebrate the birth of the acronym POO, it rolls off the tongue better than PPACA!

Does this term have a specific meaning in the regs or are folks just using this acronym to sound cool and mysterious?

And do what? How do these relate to a POO and which has only a "management relationship" and not an ownership relationship nor is it controlled by nor associated with the religious organization ? Can you define the acronym you are using -- POO -- I am not familiar with it? Also I would like to hear your answer to the question posed by the OP or "John.Nasha".

Start at 3121(w)(3)(B), 414(e)(3)©, and 414(e)(3)(D).

OP indicates assets still in plan.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43403

Generally, includible compensation is comp recd from the employer that is includible in the employee's gross income. Certain items are excludible such as 414(h) pickups and 457(f) salary deferrals. Have you found anything in the regs that allows exclusion of amounts constructively received under 457(f)?

Hope this cite from the EOB moves your analysis forward: Section 415 compensation includes compensation that is includible in income by reason of IRC §409A or IRC §457(f)(1)(A), or because the amounts are constructively received by the employee. See Treas. Reg. §1.415©-2(b)(7).

Any comments on this topic are appreciated ...

The folks we are bringing in are ineligible employees, they have not met the plan's eligibility conditions.

Plan failed 401a4 last year so a number of young NHCEs were made eligible. Plan fails 401a4 again this year and would like to make some young NHCEs eligible. Plan will probably fail next year, and so on. Maybe it is a design issue, but the question is ... How likely is the IRS to consider this "part of a pattern of amendments being used to correct repeated failures with respect to a particular benefit, right, or feature" and disallow the amendment? Appreciate your sharing your comments and experiences!

Few questions: 1. Is this employee entitled to the 3% safe harbor? 2. On what basis is the employer contribution being allocated? 3. What test specifically is failing?

An alumni association generally is subject to the control of the university as to its policies and destination of funds, and is operated as an integral part of the university. I don't have enough information to answer your question but I would recommend digging a little deeper to verify whether in this instance you have 2 sources of income or just one for plan purposes.

Try this link: https://www.tdameritrade.com/withholding.html

Rollovers are not permitted from top hat plans.

Short answer is No.

Whether it is advisable is another question, but there is nothing I am aware of in the regs that prohibits investment in IPOs. Also need to check plan's IPS.

I believe that your count includes employees who were eligible as of freeze date but not employees who become eligible thereafter.

On what basis would you contemplate the privately owned organization to be exempt from ERISA?

You will need to know whether the sole prop and the group practice are related employers before you can process the distribution.

Under 457(b) or 401(a)?

Only individuals who perform services for the eligible employer, either as an employee or as an independent contractor, may defer compensation under the eligible plan. Includible compensation of a participant means, with respect to a taxable year, the participant's compensation, as defined in section 415©(3), for services performed for the eligible employer.

In my opinion you have a participant who was fully vested in a benefit, you can not disregard service for vesting. I am unable to find authority for the contrary interpretation. I don't see that the language in the Code allows you to treat someone as an unvested participant simply because their benefits were paid out.

plan entry is July 1. No deferrals are possible but may be eligible for employer contributions such as ps, th, etc. depending on the plan.

Distributions from a 457(b) plan are not permitted on account of the purchase of a new home. You were misled by the Metlife rep you talked to on the phone. If a 457(b) plan provides for hardship distributions, it must contain specific language defining what constitutes a distribution on account of an "unforeseeable emergency." (Reg. § 1.457-6©(2)). Purchase of a new home is not an unforeseeable emergency under the regs. Generally you must wait till severance from employment or attainment of age 70 1/2. See the IRS article here ... http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=232436,00.html