Bill Presson

The only test is how many people were eligible to participate on January 1. That includes any employees that became eligible on January 1, so it's not the same number as December 31, 2007. It also includes terminated participants with account balances. Now, assuming the plan was effective in a year before 2008, that number would have to be more than 120 to be required to have an audit.

The majority of our plans are cross tested physician plans. We have almost every plan set to have forfeitures to reduce. When we're trying to target the contributions for various groups, I don't want to have to worry that we need to consider $47.53 for each person as a forfeiture to get them to the needed number. We just do the calculation and then subtract the forfeitures from the amount that gets ACH'd. Seems much cleaner to me.

Sorry I missed part of the rules. I should have known better than to comment on IRA's.

That's where you are wrong. To be tax free they still have to be a "qualified distribution".

Guess I need to just sit here and hush then. Sorry about snapping off an answer without thinking it through.

If it wasn't eligible for rollover, then Plan B should send the money back to Plan A and let them deal with it.

And since you're refunding deferrals because of a 415 violation, I don't think you have a deduction issue. Deferrals don't count against an employer's deductible limit anyway. So no 10% penalty.

Rules about what? Who owns it? How much can be spent? What income is reported?? You need to be more specific.

Can you Pick and Chose which Otherwise Excludable Employees to exclude and which to excluded? For example, exclude only the Otheriwse Excludable Employees who did not defer, and include the ones who did defer? The easist way to make that determination (I've found) is to ask yourself: If I do "X" will it help me/my client? If the answer is "yes" then it's not allowed.

1. I agree 2. line 28 is correct for the owner's amount. Schedule C is for any employee contributions 3. I assume you mean a penalty for nondeductible contributions, which is correct if 1 is accurate.

I would guess you need the cooperation of the DOL investigator. That's who you should call.

This whole thing seems very odd to me. The person receives no paycheck, complains and the sponsor says sorry? I have never worked for or with any sponsor that wouldn't immediately act to correct the issue. I'm leaning towards calling BS on this one.

S Corp dividends are not considered earned income.

FWIW, we always recommend using the money market account and we always recommend using forfeitures to reduce the employer contribution.

See if you can find something titled "Compensation while a Participant." Or similar.

This is what we would do.

I believe that what Tom is trying to say is that your testing compensation does not have to be the same as the allocation compensation defined in your document. You are able to use another definition as long as it satisfies 414(s).

We haven't had any Relius speed issues. Microsoft Office 2007 is much slower however, which might be the case with your spreadsheet.

1. you can look at the events link on the front page of benefitslink.com 2. you can call NIPA and find out about approved seminars 3. you can search the ASPPA web site. Those seminars generally qualify for APA credit as well 4. you can search the Relius and McKay Hochman web sites 5. you can search the DOL website for seminars

If disability insurance is paid for on a pre-tax basis, then the proceeds are taxable. So, they are likely correct on the additional W-2. Someone else will have to help on the allocation compensation.

Here is a number you can call to confirm receipt of 5500's :EFAST Help Line 1-866-463-3278 . All you need is tax ID and plan number. Not sure about checking a specific year or not.

Why would the fees be so much larger because of universal availabilty and how much more will be the cost in $. Wouldn't the saving in not having to do ADP testing offset the any costs due to universal availability? I'm assuming the additional costs are for the plan audit.

I'm guessing they are getting a safe harbor contribution, since he mentioned that.

I would recommend he go back to his legal counsel.