Bill Presson

We've had other issues from time to time, but not these. Feel free to email me if you want more information. bill.presson@wakm.com

Try this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/Newsroom/tr92-01.html

Don't be so wishy-washy! If you're referring to the large company in Boston, I'll let it go. But for other recordkeepers, we just try to do our job the best we can. The original post was about a clerk of the court that said the judge couldn't sign the DRO until the divorce was final. Feel free to include them in your "ass" categorie as well.

Wish I had read this thread first thing this morning! These are the kind of questions where I actually know the answers. Curses, bird, curses!!

This feels so much like a trap question. Like, I'll give my answer and then everyone will start to laugh because I missed the subtle, yet obivous clue! In any case, I think the accountant is full of....himself. I think surgery centers are one of the targets of the ASG rules. If they didn't apply there, exactly where would they apply? I would ask him to show me where the regs give the exemption and let him spend his time on it.

Here is some typical language: ALLOCATION OF EARNINGS AND LOSSES: As of each Valuation Date, accounts which have not been distributed since the prior Valuation Date will have the net income or loss of the Trust Fund earned since the prior Valuation Date allocated thereto as hereinafter set forth in this Section. Net income or loss is the net of any interest, dividends, unrealized appreciation and depreciation, capital gains and losses, and investment expenses of the Trust Fund determined on each Valuation Date.

I agree with you. He should have written the check on January 2, 2008.

And would the owner/beneficiary of the policy still be the PS Plan? Not after the participant buys the policy. It would then be just like any other personal insurance policy. Here is the PTE for the sale: DOL PTE 92-6 (amended 2002)

I know I went backwards. As I said, this is where my confusion enters. It just seems odd to me. What about this sentence from reg 2530.203-2©(1): "A plan amendment changing the vesting computation period shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of this subparagraph if the first vesting computation period established under such amendment begins before the last day of the preceding vesting computation period and an employee who is credited with 1,000 hours of service in both the vesting computation period under the plan before the amendment and the first vesting computation period under the plan as amended is credited with 2 years of service for those vesting computation periods." (emphasis added) I still read this as I interpreted it in my example. Thoughts?

I read the regs and it appears to match with exactly what you say here. But (like many things), it seems to work differently than what I "knew". To put specifics on it: 1. Year 1 ends 10/31/2007. full 12 month year, count vesting normally. (eg, full time participant at 20%) 2. Year 2 (short) ends 12/31/07. 2 month year and, according to the regs, no vesting is credited on the 12/31/07 stmts? (eg full time participant still at 20%)? 3. Year 3 ends 12/31/08. full 12 month year. vesting is counted for full year 3 AND 12 month period ending 10/31/08? (eg full time participant at 60%)? What I previously "knew" to be the case: 1. Year 1 ends 10/31/2007. full 12 month year, count vesting normally. (eg, full time participant at 20%) 2. Year 2 (short) ends 12/31/07. 2 month year and vesting is credited for the 12 months ending 12/31/07. (eg full time participant at 40%) 3. Year 3 ends 12/31/08. full 12 month year. vesting is counted for 12 months ending 12/31/08? (eg full time participant at 60%). According to the regs, looks like I've been wrong, but my way sure seems to make more sense. Did I misinterpret something or read something wrong here? Thanks.

For legal reasons, you're not going to find it here. You'll probably have to conduct a search firm that does surveys or contact other consultants you know and get feedback from them.

austin is right. You get one 402(g) limit, but not one 415© limit if the employers are unrelated. They don't have to waive anything. Just don't defer.

The desire is to go the other way, however.

I agree with buckaroo.

Go see an ERISA attorney first thing Monday morning...do not pass go...do not collect $200.

Just be sure to complete the amendment and notice by November 30!

Even if a participant defers 5%, with the SH basic match formula, this is not a true statement. They will get 4%, but it's not 100% on the first 4% that is deferred.

In plan specs;allocations;transactions

You are correct, sir! Depending on the costs of administering two plans, the savings might or might not be the entire cost of the audit.

It applies to plans with directed investments regardless of automatic enrollment.

These people might be able to help. Entrust Group I have no relation to this group.

Yes.

You can still file under the DFVC until you get a penalty assessment from the DOL. File under the program and do it right away. Respond quickly to the IRS letter as well.

I'm looking at one of these plans now. The only money ever put in the plan was the rollover of the IRA. Now the client has come to us to help "unwind" the plan. I'm trying to outline the options and none of them look very good. I called Benetrends and asked them how the plan was supposed to end. The answer I got was "oh, the corporation just writes a check to the plan for the stock, then the plan can be terminated." I'm really concerned about the prohibited transactions here. Also about the fact that no employer contributions have ever been made. Is there a PTE to allow the corp to buy the stock? If not and we find a custodian to hold the stock in an IRA, is there a PTE for the corp to buy the stock later? If we keep the plan going, the employer will have to pay the annual filing fees. If we keep the plan going and there are no employer contributions, what will the IRS/DOL say if it is reviewed? Yuck, yuck and double yuck.

I walked over to our audit department and asked them this question. The answer I got is they would not go back nearly that far. They would make a note to the audit report indicating what they were reviewing and then complete the audit on the current year. FWIW