AndyH

Did somebody try the Trustee, accountant, broker, etc.? How about any clue from the 5500 filings? If you suspect it may not exist, the problems are much larger than a missing document. How about missapropriation of salary for one? Require the client to get a lawyer yesterday.

Guess you really are the outdoorsey type, B.

Several of my clients use or have used the following, all satisfied to my knowledge. http://benefitreports.com/company.htm

I am told you have until the EGTRRA remedial amendment due date, which ain't 2005.

No way. The distribution option is protected with respect to the accrued benefit. Using that logic, nothing would ever be accrued until NRA. Pre-ERISA or Non-ERISA thinking.

Took me a week or so to get back in also, but thanks to this thread I solved it the same way. But I know others who cannot get in under the old name.

You don't need to backtrack; you had a valid point. But I also agree that the IRS and DOL, and by the way the SBA all have good publications for this sort of situation, although of course they might not sufficiently emphasize the potential tax benefits to the prospect.

flosfur?

Is it clear that the subsidy must be included in the lump sum?

Then I fail to see how the following comment is applicable:

Thanks, Belgarath. I am passing along this question after getting stumped myself. This is very real, not hypothetical. And not limited to one plan. Thanks for your and any other comments.

Is a 5500 a tax return filed by a taxpayer?

My guess it would be tested on benefits basis, so it looks ok as long as the db accrual rates ar at least 7.50% (or you otherwise meet the combo gateway) and perform head counts quite often.

Issue- how to apply 1.401(a)(4)-12 to dc plan that excludes pre-participation compensation and uses calendar year compensation. Not an easy question-any help appreciated: Facts: Regulations 1.401(a)(4) - 12 Plan Year Compensation Section (5) states that in a situation whereby an "employees' plan year compensation for a plan year is determined based on a 12 month period ending within the plan year under paragraph (3) of this definition, then the plan year compensation of any employees whose date of hire was less than 12 months before the end of that 12 month period must be determined uniformly based on either the plan year or on the employees' periods of participation during the plan year, as provided in paragraphs (2) and (4), respectively, of this definition." A plan is permitted to exclude compensation prior to participation. A plan is permitted to use calendar year compensation to define eligible compensation for a plan year. Assumptions: 9/30/2005 PYE Eligibility is 1 YOS; Age 21 with entry 10/1/2004 and 4/1/2005 Compensation computation period is defined as calendar year ending in the plan year. 2 new entrants: ("A") hired 12/31/2003 and ("B") hired 1/02/2004; both enter on 4/01/2005 Under these facts, rules and assumptions, in order to rely on a design based safe harbor under Section 401(a)(4), New Entrant A's compensation is determined for the period 01/01/2004 through 12/31/2004 and is $0.00 after excluding pre participation compensation. New Entrant B's compensation is determined for the period 4/01/2005 through 9/30/2005 (due to his date of hire not being 12 months before the end of the 12 month period (12/31/2004)). Questions: Is this analysis correct? What about year 2 when New Entrant A and New Entrant B's compensation is defined as 4/01/2005 - 12/31/2005? Isn't it true that in the absence of this rule, each would have $0.00 compensation for their first year of participation and compensation from 4/01/2005 - 12/31/2005 for their second year of participation? In addition, is the $0.00 eligible compensation a potential hidden eligibility under 410(a) even if the Plan satisfies 410(b) ratio?

Is a 5500 such a thing? A DOL rep once told me that DOL's position is that a non for profit 990 is not a "tax return". Why would a 5500 be one?

touche. BTW, found your real picture, http://whatdoiknow.typepad.com/what_do_i_k...ew_invecti.html

True. Is there a reason why one might want to have a short plan year but a full limitation year? Is there any reason to consider a limitation period of other than a year, i.e. the sum of limitation months perhaps? Can a limitation period be three dimensional?

stephen, we know that there are plenty of Yankee fans on this board, but they only come out of hiding when the team wins. Imagine if Red Sox fans had behaved that way for 84 years.

Just to clarify, DP, if you set it up to have a 10 month plan year, then, yes, the limits are prorated. But you do not need to do that.

definitely, if the plan provides for it of course. I actually had a client insist that the limit be capped at $180K because anything above that was "unfair".

#1 should be edited so that a future increase applies only to that year and subsequent years. For example, the 2005 limit cannot be used for 2004.

I don't think you necessarily need to file Form 10. See the instructions to Form 10. There are a couple of waiver provisions. I think the missed payment must be reported on the PBGC participant Notice if such notice is required, but my understanding is that a deficiency by itself does not create the need for the PBGC Notice. I think there is a separate ERISA Notice that seems to have no due date. A search will generate some discussion of that.

My opinion would be that this is very basic, easily noticeable, and would be the type of thing that actually affects employees, so it something that must be quickly fixed.

It is not uncommon to have one entry date be the entry date nearest completion of one year of service (1,000 hours in a 12 month period) but I don't think what you reference works using "following". Then you'd need two.