QNPG

I do apologize for taking it the wrong way, Tom. I've read many of your posts and I certainly respect your opinion and that of your colleagues. I guess I felt that way because I posted a question a few days ago about a 412i plan which created such a stir that the entire post was deleted. Maybe it was the length of the responses or the topic, not sure. Again, I do apologize. Please disregard anything previous. And, yes this is the first message board I've posted on. I usually send questions to TAG but decided to try this as well.

Considering you and a few others are obviously very experienced and knowledgeable with regard to the retirement and finance/accounting field (some are CPAs as well) and are also obviously respected by your peers and others on this site, you would think you guys would be more tolerable and kind. In any case, thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

How do the modules for the newly designed CPC designation stack up to the previous QPA and QKA exams? Also, how do they stack up in comparison to the ERPA exam? I am sure that the actual DB sit down exam and CPC sit down exam are very challenging, but I wonder about the modules. I'm getting ready to receive the study material and wanted to gage my time to study. Fyi...to give background info ... I have ERPA, QPA, QKA and APA designation with 10 yrs consulting experience in the industry. Any advice is appreciated. Share you war story as well!

Call 313-234-1280. AIRE gave me this number after I got curious myself about my score

Absolutely LOVE your quote in your signature!!!

You are correct. You cannot convert either way.

You are correct. You can terminate a DB (rules permitting) and roll the assets into a PS plan but no conversion allowed.

ERPA was much easier.

Not sure, but you could call AIRE. I'd love to know mine as well...

Thank you, Gentlemen.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of. It it dangerously close to failing now. Thank you for the advice.

Thank you both for your responses. I can appreciate the humor.

#1: Yes #2: Yes How an insurance policy is paid isn't really the issue. The issue is the taxation of the amount that is paid for the policy and whether that amount meets the incidental benefit rules. In performing the incidental test, you are correct about what is counted. Rollover amounts are not contributions and cannot be counted in meeting the test. If the premium doesn't meet the incidental test, then the premium is taxable. Thank you for your response.

I am restating a DB plan for EGTRRA. In reviewing the file containing hte original document and subsequent amendments, I noticed that the DB (#002) plan was originally a 412i Plan which is a carve-out plan (401k plan is #001) and was later amended to a traditional DB plan. The second thing I noticed was that the original document excluded several people by name and then a few more by plan amendment. I assume that the reason for the exclusion was that it was a carve out plan. I would like to gather opinions on: #1 - a conversion of a carve out 412i/401k plan into a carve out traditional DB Plan/401k plan; any issues on this type of conversion? #2 - a carve out 412i plan/401k plan - I do not see many of these in the industry so what would be your opinion of this type of arrangement?

#1: Is it permissible to rollover a life insurance policy from a previous qualified plan (DB) into a newly established PS Plan? #2: If so, is it permissible to use the cash value of that policy to pay the current premiums on that same policy in this new PS Plan? It is my understanding that life insurance premiums can only be paid from contributions and forfeitures (excluding earnings on that money). Premiums can also be paid from dividends from the policy. Either way, would you please provide the cite to support your opinion? Thank you!

So long as you stay within the parameters of the ADP/ACP safe harbor (see below), you are still exempt from any testing and TH requirements. The amount of a discretionary safe harbor match cannot exceed 4% of compensation, and the match cannot apply to the amount of a deferral that exceeds 6% of compensation. §1.401(m)-3 Safe harbor requirements. (d) Limitation on contributions (1) General rule. A plan that provides for matching contributions meets the requirements of this section only if it satisfies the limitations on contributions set forth in this paragraph (d). (2) Matching rate must not increase. A plan that provides for matching contributions meets the requirements of this paragraph (d) only if the ratio of matching contributions on behalf of an employee under the plan for a plan year to the employee’s elective deferrals and employee contributions, does not increase as the amount of an employee’s elective deferrals and employee contributions increases. (3) Limit on matching contributions. A plan that provides for matching contributions satisfies the requirements of this section only if (i) Matching contributions are not made with respect to elective deferrals or employee contributions that exceed 6% of the employee’s safe harbor compensation (within the meaning of §1.401(k)-3(b)(2)); and (ii) Matching contributions that are discretionary do not exceed 4% of the employee’s safe harbor compensation.

My client would like to fully vest all employees employed as of June 30, 2011. They are acquiring another entity and want to apply the vesting schedule for all employees employed on and thereafter July 1, 2011. Would this amendment require a 401(a)(4) BRF test? I am of the opinion that as of the date of the amendment (June 30, 2011), this amendment is non-discriminatory in nature since it applies to ALL employees of the employer. There are more NHCEs which would be vested fully than HCEs. Further, with the 3-year vesting rule, the new employees would not have the right to choose to stay with the old vesting schedule and the employees who have accrued three years of service would of course elect to be 100% vested. Am I missing something?

In the Corbel prototype, it explicitly prohibits the use of a J&S 100% as the normal form. In the administration of plans at a previous firm at which I worked, it was common practice to "fund" for the normal form with J&S 100% although the DB used a prototype and the stated normal form was "life only". The reason they thought that this was acceptable was that under the forms of distribution section, the subsidized benefit of J&S 100% at NRA was offered. Is this permissible?

Thank you. I kind of felt that way but I was hoping for the best!

In the Corbel prototype, it explicitly prohibits the use of a J&S 100% as the normal form. In the administration of plans at a previous firm at which I worked, it was common practice to "fund" for the normal form with J&S 100% although the DB used a prototype and the stated normal form was "life only". The reason they thought that this was acceptable was that under the forms of distribution section, the subsidized benefit of J&S 100% at NRA was offered. Is this permissible?

Is the ability to take a distribution from your rollover account from a 401k Plan "at anyt time" a protected benefit?