Bill Presson

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

Hi Monica. We use Relius and have been very pleased.

It's deductible if it's a sole proprietor or a partnership or some LLC's. I don't think the post said it was a corporation. I also believe (but don't have time to verify) that the contribution could be made within 30 days of the 9/15 deductible deadline for the corporation, shown as 2006 contributions and deducted on the 2007 1120.

I would have done it like this: Employer makes plan whole; TPA reduces fee to employer in equal amount to make Employer whole. Not that I have any experience with having to fix problems that were my fault.

I'm so exhausted by the notices. Many clients just assume we've done something wrong if they get an IRS notice. We can generally explain the issue, but it's costing us a small fortune having to deal with it.

You might also contact a newspaper in Lynchberg and see if someone there knows what happened to the paper. If you can get the new owner, they might be able to see if she is due a benefit. Make sure it's early enough in Lynchberg that they haven't started "imbibing".

There are lots of things you need to be concerned about. First you'll need to find a Trustee/Custodian that will hold the ownership interest in the LLC. Not sure that will be very easy. Then you need to remember that any earnings/profit from the LLC is owned by the IRA. Also, if there are any additional amounts that you have to contribute (split expenses, etc.) that will need to come from the IRA. This is probably cleaner than owning the real estate directly, but you still need to get some help from someone that has done this before.

You could accept the request and turn around and hire a good ERISA attorney to actually give you the answer. Just make sure your agreement with the attorney outlines what you want. Edited to add: Be sure to bill them for all your time and the attorney's time (after the point by WDIK below).

If the only change was from writing a check to not writing a check, it wouldn't really be a big deal. But that's not (most of) the real world. The typical case is the 15 person balance forward plan with a single brokerage account. We have to go through hoops now to make tax deposits, with much thanks to a friendly bank for accepting the 8109's. The brokerage firm is no help and some even refuse to write checks to the bank to allow the employer to make the tax deposit!