AndyH

Somebody told me recently that the excise penalty did not apply in this situation to a safe harbor contribution. I have not had time to check this out for myself. If true, this must be a fairly recent change. Perhaps some fish or mammal could confirm or deny?

Regulation 1.401(a)(4)-8 (b)(2)(ii) This is a pre-2001 amendment cite. The reference may have moved.

When using the accrued to date method, you must add back in distributions to HCEs and you have the option of adding back in distributions to NHCEs. I don't see any reason why a QDRO would be treated as anything other than a distribution for this purpose.

Belgarath, to whom would such a request at the IRS be addressed? It's a NY corporation I believe. Blinky, I am aware of the filing requirements. There may be a non-owner participant-I'm uncertain-that's why I was looking.

I am asking the question in general because the particular facts are a bit murky. Apparently someone died who may have owned a company with only one owner/employee and an attorney is trying to determine who the legal sponsor and Trustee are and whether or not the plan has other participants. So it is upon death of the owner of a closely held business. Weird situation. Someone is trying to put the pieces of a puzzle together and I am passing on the question. I've already tried freeerisa.com and I don't see any filings close to the name although I was able to get the company address from a reverse EIN lookup. A 5500 lookup from an EIN is now a "premium service" which I am not setup for. Thanks for the responses.

First, fish breath, I am not a boy. Reference my rugged profile! Second, while I happen to concur, I have twice run across non-new actuarians who espoused the opposite opinion.

I mean a copy of a Plan Document that has been adopted by a sponsor. Years ago, they were filed and theoretically available from the DOL. Many are submitted to the IRS for FDL requests. Are, for example, those documents available to plan participants at a time later than the review period?

Related question: Is it a 411(d)(6) violation to use the applicable interest rate for actuarial equivalency calculations involving monthly benefits, i.e. one month an early retirement benefit could be lower than another month?

Ooh, Blinky, I'd be spouting off if I were you. That is quite arrogant. I have found your answers and those of others on these Boards to be much more complete and accurate and useful than theirs on advanced topics. They handle the simple ones fine. But at least you are famous now. Kind of like Steve Martin finding his name in the phonebook in "The Jerk".

It appears to me that a monthly pension for life should always be coded as a 7. I agree this is not clear from the instructions but such a monthly pension does not fit the requirements for code 2 and code 7 includes all other.

Forms, remember what Dave Baker said about that veba section?

Janet, I thought I was the only such sad soul. Glad to know I'm not alone (I think). Ned, I'm over 16 so that might actually be a good idea for me, especially in my occupation. But it's that variable life policy on my life that my uncle sold my mom when I was three that gets me mad. Imagine if she had bought Microsoft stock instead? I might have been able to go to college and not be stuck out here in the water!

Janet, Since the emphasis on "listed transactions" and the decline of fun items such as springing cash value 412(i) plans, each time we lose someone who pushes life insurance as investments for children or college education plans I lose a potential food source. Quite sad.

It would appear that he has been voted off and perhaps harpooned. But I miss him already.

And you won't impress too many engineer-employees by calling the participants Boss Man and Schmo. Perhaps replace them with Marine Animal and Mammal, respectively.

You are confused because you were up too late at post game SuperBowl parties, now just admit it!

Guess I'll stop my massage classes now.

Is it possible to obtain a copy of a plan document from the IRS or some other agency? Presumably the IRS might be the only option for a modern document and only if submitted as part of an FDL application.

Do you have HCEs with <1 YOS? If not, then the disaggregated group automatically passes. Then test a(4) and 410(b) with just the 1 YOS+ people.

If there is some test that she must be included in, then you could have a problem. Per Jim Holland a couple of years ago at ASPA national, no compensation=not an employee=not in the test=any test. He could not have expressed that opinion clearer.

Jaemmons, yes, absolutely IMHO. NTGB, if you do an ABPT for two plans one with a 6/30 year end and another with a 12/31, you are using only 12 months of data for each, data corresponding to the plan year. Absolutely not 18 months.

NTGB, are you suggesting that 18 months of data should be included in the test?

Archimage, I find your question to be unclear. Do you have one plan that had a 7/1-6/30 year and is changing to calendar? If that is the case and assume for a moment the short year ends 12/31/2004, are you then asking if you test the short 2004 year do you include 6 months of data or 18 months of data? If this is the question then I say 6 months. Or you might be able to justify using calendar 2004 data under the substantiation guidelines, but I'd have to look at that. But perhaps the question is something different?

Fred, 401(k) deferrals could be affected by only a few things: Excess deferrals under 402(g). The buyback would not affect 402(g). Annual additions limit under 415. The buyback would not affect 415. A nondiscrimination test result. The buyback ..............these tests. A plan limit on deferrals. The buyback would not .......... A limit on deductable contributions under 404 The buyback would not ....... None of the things that affect 401(k) deferrals would be affected.

Most of my plans have this provision. The advantage to the employee in this situation is that final average compensation can be applied to pre-distribution service if the payment is restored. Any money can be used and it does create a basis. The plan does not care where the money came from. And it is not a 415 annual addition or an issue under 404. It is analagous to a rollover within that context. I researched this a few years ago. I don't recall how or where but these were my conclusions and I have since seen confirming interpretations. Vesting service is automatically restored I believe (at least in our plans); only benefit service is re-purchased. These provisions were an attempt to placate GCM 39310. I know some argue that such GCM does not apply to DB plans but that is not a universal opinion.