Doghouse

I think you have been singled out for this treatment by the IRS

Sadly, Peter, 401(a)(26) kills this concept.

In a prior position, we had a plan exactly like that, and for exactly the same reasons. However, once AFTAPs hit the scene, it got ugly. We ended up terminating it. I never liked it anyway, it seemed a bit too blatant in its obvious purpose of avoiding Social Security taxes.

I think what you're looking for DOL Reg. 2530.200b-1(b).

The Pension Answer Book is also worth mentioning.

Lou - there is no related business transaction. QDROphile - the concern is not so much about the cessation of safe harbor for the spinoff, just about the spinoff itself.

In an attempt to reduce safe harbor contributions for an underperforming subsidiary, it has been proposed that the accounts belonging to employees of that subsidiary be spun off into a new safe harbor plan. The spinoff plan would then be amended to replace the safe harbor match with a discretionary match. Recognizing that there is little in the way of guidance, what is your gut feeling about whether the spinoff would be considered a mid-year amendment? We don't want to endanger the safe harbor status of the "main" plan.

It is definitely going to be subject to ADP testing and 402(g). I can't see how any other testing, other than the normal 415, would apply.

Care must be taken with respect to vesting. I believe a change in NRA can be considered a change in vesting schedule.

The only issue I found is that we always had clients who wanted to file without extending, and if I filed an extension request, the client would get an acknowledgment directly from the DOL. Then I always had explaining to do (with a sometimes not very happy client) as to why it was filed.

If you are asking if the deferral can be considered as catch-up because the total contributions on his behalf exceed the 415(c ) limit, the answer is of course yes.

Prior to 1987, only after-tax employee contributions exceeding the lesser of 6% of compensation or 1/2 the employee contributions were counted as annual additions. Many plans limited the after-tax contribution % to 6% for that reason. I'm showing my age .

I vote unrelated.

I always thought this was more of a DOL issue than an IRS one, and that the calculator can be used only if you go through the Voluntary Fiduciary Correction (VFC) Program.

Discussed before, right? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/56931-freezing-0-money-purchase-plan/

I did run across this: https://order.tupperware.com:8300/ccm-pdf/mb_oppFunds_singleK_PlanDocument.pdf I don't know if that's the one you're looking for, but based on the dates, it might be.

yep, that one. In case it makes a difference, I was searching for "EACA".

I'm not able to search the forums. When I click the search icon, I just get "Did you mean benefitslink.com?" It happens no matter if I am searching within a forum or across all forums.

As a TPA I had a plan that had millions of dollars of non-qualifying assets, and the sponsor was unable to obtain sufficient bonding - accordingly had to get a very expensive audit instead.

Must such an individual receive any top heavy minimum?

It's not just you

Just as an example, for one of our plans, although the adoption agreement would allow you to select the NRA criterion for in-service withdrawals, the basic plan document has the following language: Provisions Applicable to 401(k) Plans If the Plan is a 401(k) plan, the minimum attained age requirement which can be elected by the Sponsoring Employer in the Adoption Agreement with respect to the distribution of amounts attributable to a Participant's Elective Deferrals, QNECs, QMACs, ADP Safe Harbor Non-Elective Contributions and/or ADP Safe Harbor Matching Contributions is 59 1/2.

It's lurking in Chapter 7 Part E, #2 (before 2.a.).

Sal Tripodi agrees with you.

I don't know if you'll find anything specifically saying that the deduction rules don't apply here, but for what it's worth, IRC 404 does define the types of plans to which it applies, and 403(b) isn't one of them...