Scuba 401

that is the PPA extension that was worthless. not the EGTRRA restatement.

yea please tell me there is something behind this. i have over 200 docs to do in 4 months.

this time around they have asked for GUST and proof of that they were entitled to the GUST extension. unlike GUST where they seemed to go all the way to TRA 86, this time they seem to be focussing on the more recent docs.

CCH doesn't have it yet. do you know where i can get it?

Yes, and that's why it's problematic. As are we...I wish they would just move on to something else already. isnt the real deadline the deadline tax filing deadline?

I mean an extra 3-6 months from april 30. i still have 200 plans to do.

as anyone heard about an extension? i would love another 3-6 months.

any investment advisors out there carry a fiduciary erisa bond. i am seeing that there is an exception for advisors that do not have discretionary authority. i want to see if others agree or what others are doing?

it seems reasonable. i just dont want to open a can of worms.

what do you do if the problem goes back more than 6 years or for years that the sponsor does not have records. for example, lets say you only have records for the last 6 years but you know the plan was administered the same way the entire life of the plan and you don't have records for any years beyond 6. how can you determine the contributions? should you even include those years in your submission?

my adminstrator is questioning the use of the bottom up method. she thinks that with out 415 it seems unfair. you can basically give the contribution to one person. i see there is in fact some legislative history that is telling treasury to address this problem. has it been addressed and if so not does anyone have any thoughts on how to handle this while there are no regs?

i was wrong. i located the language in the plan. basically, the employer has the choice and one method is the bottom up.

the plan document is silent as to allocating qnecs with the exception of the fact that they must be allocated to non highly compensated employees.

can anyone update the status of where we stand on this topic. can you make a bottom up qnec even if your plan document does not provide for it?

I just located this thread and have the same question - does the plan need to be amended to add the bottom up qnec and if so how do you go about doing this when you are using a prototype. the correction procedure clearly authorizes the method but in order to use it do you need service approval?

that is what i thought. of course i was aware of the code section but thought something changed when the IRS told my client that they could roll the money now that the law changed. the IRS ought to learn the tax code. it might help them with their jobs.

If an employer sponsors both a 401(k) and a 403(B) and a participant wants to roll his money from the (B) plan to the (k) plan what has to happen besides for the (k) plan accepting rollovers. I was under the impression there had to be a distributable event of some sort. the money is currently invested in a 403(B)(7) custodial account arrangement.

One thing that worries me is how sun america totally fails to address the offset approach of Frost. Sun America is allowed to keep the excess while Frost had to give it to the Plan. This I dont get.

i am not jon but if you think about the sun america model, it really is not deterimental to the participants. it is really just bringing a higher level of advice to participants. my thinking is sun america has some applicability to lifestyle or model portfolio type approach where an independent investment consultant creates and modifies the portfolios. although my firm is an investment advisor and a fiduciary since we have hired this independent consulting firm to create the portfolio we are not violating 406(B).

I just discovered this thread while looking for commentary on the Sun American opinion. I am having a difficult time reconciling it with Frost. It really seams to say that a fiduciary (investment advisor) can receive additional compensation so long as the individual investment decisions or recommendations are independent (not the result of the Fiduciary's excercise of authority or control) and the compensation is fully disclosed. any opinions would be welcome.

what is the deadline for distribution to existing participants an SPD reflecting amendments required by GUST? i am reading the regs and they indicate 210 days from the last day of the plan year in which the changes take effect. since the gust amendments have a retrocative effective date i am a bit confused.

appleby, under what is theory? just want to get some additional confirmation.

a check was cut and a 1099 was issued for 2002 but the participant never received the check. should we issue a corrected 1099 for 2002 and issue a 1099 for 2003 the year the participant receives the check? for some reason i think you stick with the 1099 for 2002 along the lines of a constructive receipt thoery.

does the plan allow in-service distributions?

Do, clearly you are not aware that the vast majority of this board earns their living from the complexity of these plans. any so called tax reform that dimininshes our ability to earn a living will be of course be considered bad. however, this plan is bad for the average employee for the reasons cited by ASPA. small business owners will have no incentive to sponsor plans under this proposal. this proposal makes it highly unlikely that the average worker will receive an annual 3 or 4% matching or profit sharing contribution.