PensionPro

You can also call EBSA at 202.693.8360 for your DFVCP questions.

Line 2 of Part I must be completed to report contract administrators and persons receiving, directly or indirectly, $5,000 or more in compensation for all services rendered during the year.

Sorry to hear you were laid off. The best source of information is the plan administrator/employer because there are a number of variables here. Generally speaking, a plan will make distributions within 12 months of plan termination, but this is not always the case. On the bright side, when a plan terminates participants typically become fully vested.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23129

However, you still have to be in compliance with §1.401(a)(4)-5.

The point made by the article is that the shift from traditional DB plans to 401(k) plans is not working out well for the individual: "two and a half decades ago, his then employer, Occidental Petroleum Corp., cut its traditional defined pension plan in favor of a 401(k)-type system." Employers transferred the responsibility for funding as well as investment experience to the individual employee. There were very few altruistic motives behind the move to 401(k) plans I believe. As a replacement for DB plans, these CODAs are less favorable to the employee. In many circles 401(k)-type plans are overhyped and superstitiously worshipped. These plans are not the panacea for the world's retirement ailments.

Service approval is not required to change the plan year of a plan that is not subject to section 412. Rev. Proc. 87-27.

Not following you; are you referring to an articles section on these message boards (or news or press release section)? We have news at http://benefitslink.com/news and press releases at http://benefitslink.com/pr -- wonder if that's what you mean. David Dave, What I meant was ... if a member wants to post and repost articles, the already-existing news or PR section of the site is a more appropriate forum than this discussion/message board. Entirely agree with Bird's previous post. Thanks. PensionPro

In case you did not already have the phone number, you can call The Service at (877)829-5500 for your qualified plan questions.

In response to your last question, here are a couple of other options: 1) get a written legal opinion from an ERISA attorney, or 2) post the details on this forum, and maybe someone can guide your determination

The code does not place restrictions on the distributions of rollover contributions, such as it places on 401(k) deferrals and profit sharing contributions. However, a plan is not required to allow the distribution of rollover contributions 'prematurely.' The plan document dictates. A plan may allow the distribution of rollover amounts at any time.

I agree. How about a policy that messages only are posted to the message boards, and articles are posted to the articles (or news or press release) section?

Here is my perspective. If you are still employed and under age 70 1/2 there are only limited circumstances under which you may be eligible for a distribution/rollover from a 457 plan. Attaining age 59 1/2 is not one of them. 1) Unforeseeable emergency 2) Small amounts See §1.457-6.

If the employee has already met the statutory entry date requirements of IRC sec. 410(a)(4), then employee enters the plan immediately, and does not have to wait till the next scheduled entry date.

A disclaimer of opinion is issued when a limited scope audit is performed. A qualified opinion is issued when certain issues are not in full conformity with GAAP or OCBOA.

I hope I can clarify your question without adding confusion. The 403(b) regs say that match contributions to a 403(b) plan must meet the requirements of section 401(m). So you can utilize the safe harbor approach or the ACP testing approach to meet the requirements of section 401(m). If utilizing the safe harbor approach, you must meet the requirements for the ACP safe harbor. As you pointed out, the ADP safe harbor requirements are not relevant. You can use the statutory exclusion rule as long as your otherwise excludible employees group passes the ACP test -- either because there are no HCEs, or because the numbers work out. Otherwise you will need to correct the ACP failure. You are not testing the deferrals (either through the ADP test or through the ADP safe harbor), but you are testing the match under 401(m). I have seen documents (I think it was a Corbel VS) that state that only those who meet the statutory requirements will/may be eligible for the safe harbor match contributions. I think most pre-approved documents will have similar language.

I can't think of any reason. If there are less than 25 participants you MAY be eligible for PPA-simplified reporting that includes limited Schedule A filing.

Yes, you can use the statutory exclusions and provide the safe harbor match to the nonexcludible employees. However, I do not think the OP was asking about statutory exclusions. If not using statutory exclusions, the plan must meet the requirements of §1.401(m)-3(d)(4). I agree with this statement made by the OP: "if you are eligibile to defer you are eligible for the safe harbor match unless you are utilizing the statutory exclusions."

See §1.401(m)-3(d)(4). I believe the answer is no.

I believe model SARSEPs exclude cafeteria contributions from compensation definition. However, cafeteria contributions are included in compensation for determining excludable employees.

Maybe you can clarify your question. I thought employee contributions to an HSA are includible in income as employee wages, and subject to social security and medicare taxes -- unless the contributions are made through a cafeteria plan.

Mark Box A(3) of Form 5500 for a multiple employer plan, and file only one return.

From IRS Notice 98-4 Q. B-4: Are tax-exempt employers and governmental entities permitted to maintain SIMPLE IRA Plans? A. B-4: Yes. Excludable contributions may be made to the SIMPLE IRA of employees of tax-exempt employers and governmental entities on the same basis as contributions may be made to employees of other eligible employers.

Yes. I don't understand why switching custodians would make a difference though. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=43414&hl=