Earl

How to set up allocation under age based document with two drs. who are sole props? total schedule Cs and put in PLV 286? Any issues regarding employee cost? [This message has been edited by Earl (edited 04-18-2000).]

dont you think classifications definitions should be revealed? i sure do

do you think it is a fiduciary duty to formally request? do you think the bank or mutual fund company is liable in my example?

i have a client who had a problem in a similar situation. The idea was you can accept rollovers from employees "in anticipation of becoming participants". Here they got into trouble accepting a rollover because the people were never going to become participants. It was an audit pre-my take over of the plan. I never could get real details from the cleint. Just be careful. The IRS made them pay some money. Thats all i know [This message has been edited by Earl (edited 04-15-2000).]

There is also an IRS form to request a copy of a filed form. There is some stupid fee associated with this filing ($3?). I did it once a long time ago and use freeErisa now a couple of times.

you have to get answers to all your questions before you prepare the forms.

You could always have them wait till the end of the year to determine plan design, however the possibility that the IRS will resolve this review this year is a good joke.

I agree that it would be year 2000 comp and deferral. I always viewed the 1.415-2(d)(5)(ii)"transfer" technique as permission to diviate from the W-2s for ADP testing. Not for 402(g). I always thought of this as one of many ways you can deviate from reality in ADP testing. (shifting, otherwise excludible, current/prior, gross up or not, refunds no longer result in test passage)

i would say that it cannot be ignored, but the final can be done. The idea is similar to the old instructions example that says a final can be done if all participants are paid and only the reversion is still in the fund. Presumably you show as a payable and bottom line =$0

hardballing the terminee who received the extra money was the option a client of mine took. Threat of amended 1099 creating excess IRA contributions and excise tax. The guy actually gave the money back. This was a case where the mutual fund company mailed the distribution to the participant (payable to the Trustee, fbo the Participant). Partic. had elected direct distribution and his bank cashed the check. We thought that the bank might be responsible in some way because we also had a failure to withhold income tax issue. Former Participant came up with the money and problem ended.

a solution might be to have the IRA send the money back to the plan, having the plan say the money was not due you. then the plan could make the distribution and correctly report it. But if you already got the money....

just so you know someone is reading this.... BUT i have not changed from the traditional file type [This message has been edited by Earl (edited 04-09-2000).]

I am about to switch to unit accounting on some accounts... Anyone doing it? How is the conversion process utility? Any problems of note? How is the div. utility? (anyone moving to bay area, need a job?)

and of course the deposit method is tied to the number used, not the payor

guaranteed paymemts are earned income. Seems to me the gross guarantee payment.

agreed. Prototypes didn't consider this contribution and so it can't be covered. You can always file down the line.

not me.

fails by definition of deferral. made pursuant to an employee election not to receive

Unclear on John's question. If the 1996 deferral was corrected in 1998 and after the 12 months following period? Also, you could fail a test in the year if you are using prior year data.

excelent summary. Thanks Personally, I still think age and serv, yes. entry, no

If you start to treat the trusts as one pool for both plans, you have no problem.

Seems to me that the statutory exclusions relate to age and service, not entry. Plan provision: 1. Age: 20 - you can pretend this is 21 2. Min svc: 1 month - you can pretend this is 12. 3. entry date: whatever - I don't think you can chnge. Desn't it say otherwise excluable due to min age and service?

rev. proc. 99-31 (i think) says company makes contribution to the participant in an amount eaqual to the ADP of that participant group for the portion of the year impermissably denied benefits. Same ACP. Plus earnings.

thanks, mo. I have had similar exper with the pay to sponsor option. Too much work. There has to be some place that you can just pay/send your taxes. It can't be this difficult. (or can it?)

to moderator: naming members of groups?! I always thought that was nixed. Particularly for creating inelig. classifications. I always thought that logic would extend to rate groups. Did those documents you have seen have DLs? Amazing!