PensionPro

It would be reasonable to prorate his comp, not the comp limit.

QSLOBs are treated as single employers for purposes of top heavy testing. All plans in the required aggregation group must be included in top heavy testing.

It is a fiduciary's responsibility to accurately value the plan's assets. This cite from the DOL is on point: “It would be difficult, if not impossible, for a fiduciary to fulfill these fiduciary responsibilities if the fiduciary lacked correct information concerning the value of a plan's assets, including hard-to-value assets such as real estate holdings, private equity funds, limited partnerships and closely held employer stock.” As is this one "a process which merely uses the general partner's established value for all funds without additional analysis may not insure that the alternative assets are valued at fair market value."

It is possible in some instances, but not sure if it works in your case. If you are a real estate dealer, rent received in the course of your trade or business is included in self-employment income. You are a real estate dealer if you are engaged in the business of selling real estate to customers with the purpose of making a profit from those sales. Rents received from the use of or occupancy of hotels, boarding houses, or apartment houses are included in self-employment income IF you provide services to the occupants. Services are considered provided to the occupants if the services are for the convenience of the occupants and are not services normally provided with the rental of rooms or space for occupancy only. Maid service, for example, is a service provided for the convenience of occupants, while heat and light, cleaning of stairways, and the collection of trash are not.

Last I checked they had not put out an english version. In the meantime there are several summaries in english like this one which you have probably already seen. english_summary_circular_letter_11_10.pdf

Yes 49k ps plus 5500 catchup. One poster was having trouble with the IRS regarding this concept but we have not heard the outcome. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=51102

They can amend the plan to include service with prior employer however the timing of plan amendments must not have the effect of discriminating significantly in favor of HCEs. Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-1(b)(4). Whether the timing of a plan amendment or series of plan amendments has the effect of discriminating significantly in favor of HCEs or former HCEs is determined at the time the plan amendment first becomes effective for purposes of section 401(a), based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances. Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(4)–5(a)(2).

Revenue Ruling 2007-43 states that "the applicable period depends on the circumstances: the applicable period is a plan year (or, in the case of a plan year that is less than 12 months, the plan year plus the immediately preceding plan year) or a longer period if there are a series of related severances from employment." So if you take the position that the applicable period is the plan year then it is premature to determine whether a partial termination occurred. In practical terms you process the distribution according to the terms of the document. At the end of the year you make the determination and pay additional amounts or not depending on your determination. I don't know about exposure because participants were paid the right vesting. If you subsequently determine higher vesting you pay out the differential. At least that's my view.

The rules for employment of international students are somewhat complex. However generally speaking, international students on a F-1 visa are allowed to work 20 hrs/wk on campus during the school year and FT during vacation periods. 12-month optional practical training is permitted FT after completion of degree. Those are the most common employment situations. There are a handful of other situations: curricular practical training, severe economic hardship and employment with an international organization.

'International students’ are defined as students who are enrolled at institutions of higher education in the US who are not citizens of the US, immigrants or refugees.

International students are not excludible. Nonresident alien employees who did not earn U.S. source income are excludible.

Comp excludes 125 deferrals.

Not seen anything specific but this discussion might help ... http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43340

How does a participant show that he or she is experiencing a hardship? Generally, if a 401(k) plan provides for hardship distributions, the plan will specify what information must be provided to the employer to demonstrate a hardship. Most 401(k) plans use the "deemed necessary" rules, so that inquiry into the employee's financial status is not required. In other cases, an employer may generally rely on the employee's representation that he or she is experiencing an immediate and heavy financial need that cannot be relieved from other resources. However, an employer cannot rely on an employee's representation if the employer has actual knowledge that the employee's need can be relieved: (1) through reimbursement or compensation by insurance; (2) by liquidation of the employee's assets; (3) by stopping elective contributions or employee contributions under the plan; (4) by other currently available distributions (such as plan loans) under plans maintained by the employer or by any other employer; or (5) by borrowing from commercial sources. (Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)©) However, an employee is not required to take counterproductive actions. For example, the need for funds to purchase a principal residence cannot reasonably be relieved by a plan loan if the loan would disqualify the employee from obtaining other necessary financing. (Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(D)) - From IRS Web site

From the IRS Web site: IRC §415 Limitations: Generally, qualified plans are not permitted to allocate contributions and other additions to plan participants in excess of the IRC §415 limitations. This limit applies to each participant, and is based on annual additions made during the plan’s Limitation Year. The limit on annual additions made and allocated to each participant in defined contribution plans, as provided by IRC §415©, is the lesser of 1) the IRC §415 dollar limit or 2) 100 percent of the participant’s compensation for the Limitation Year. For purposes of this limit, the Limitation Year is a 12 consecutive month period that will be defined within the plan document, but is generally the same as the Plan Year. Annual Additions, for purposes of this limit, generally include all employer contributions, employee contributions and forfeitures allocated to the participant. Finally, compensation is specifically defined under IRC §415©(3), with certain exclusions such as rollovers, with this definition required to be clearly set out within the plan document. In addition, “ catch-up” contributions made to cash or deferred arrangements (i.e., IRC §401(k) plans) for individuals age 50 or over are not considered annual additions. The consequences of exceeding the IRC §415 limit are that the plan will fail to retain its status as a qualified plan, resulting in potential adverse tax consequences to the employer, trust and participants, unless certain corrective actions are timely made. In addition, IRC §404(j) provides that employer contributions made that exceed the IRC §415 limits are not deductible. For more detail with respect to the IRC §415 limitations, it is recommended that you consult with your local pension professional.

Also remember that for 415 purposes the "at least 80%" common ownership requirement is replaced by "more than 50%."

The plan fails 410(b) ratio percentage test. The plan doc should provide guidance on whether to perform the average benefits test or allocate to the terminated participant. PS: terminees are not entitled to the TH minimum.

Is that not a permitted exclusion if employees are eligible to defer under another 403(b) plan of the employer?

In order to be a leased employee, the services must be performed under an agreement between the recipient and a leasing organization IRC §414(n)(2)(A). A leasing organization is an organization (such as a "temp agency" or PEO) that contracts with client organizations to provide workers. If the individual receiving the 1099 meets the definition of a leasing organization you have an argument.

In a balance forward profit sharing only plan, is there any guidance relating to whether earnings are allocated to the forfeiture account? How is everyone else treating this? Thank you.

Since the plan provides for forfeitures to reduce contributions and not to be reallocated it is possible that the IRS will approve your proposed correction under VCP if under the facts and circumstances no other participant is shorted for the prior or current years.

No one on this thread was discussing the treatment of forfeitures or attacking the perceived level of knowledge in others. Thanks.

In my experience the worksheets in Pub 560 are limited in scope and probably only work for a sole prop with no employees. I have not found any authority which states that the deduction and allocation rules are different for SEIs and Corps. Nor for the idea of capping earned income before applying the deductions, etc.

I meant applying the plan's compensation definition to the situation rather than amending the plan's compensation definition. It all depends on your goals, and the facts and circumstances of the situation.

Depends on the plan's definition of compensation. Currency conversion is involved. Unless CAD is trading the same as USD.