Bill Presson

http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/...=151786,00.html

In my opinion, the check date is the date the check is written. I would side with the participant. But that's just me. They could always call the IRS and see what they think.

Relius is still talking about it, but the biggest issue is figuring out a way to tie the information to payroll data. And we will always have to use SSN's for distribution tax reporting, so even if an employer is reluctant, they still have to give it to us.

I wonder how many NHCE's actually got bonuses and if it would really make difference.

The EGTRRA amendment does say that matching contributions shall be taken into account for purposes of satisfying the minimum contribution requirements. so, how does the intergated profit sharing contribution of 3.08% of comp. get allocated? Do I allocated as pro rata on comp plus excess or is it allocated as a top heavy plan without match is allocated? Am I making this harder that it is? It's been a long year so far. I would allocate it without taking into account the match or any top heavy requirements. Then test it to see if it satisfies top heavy (while counting the match). But you can't use the match to satisfy any of the permitted disparity requirements.

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.