rcline46

Read the directions that came with the checks. I think you can refuse the checks as un-distributable.

1. Failed 401(a)(4) - have you tried all mortality tables and interest rates, statutory exclusions, comp definitions, etc, etc, etc. It just might pass. 2. Failed Gateway - statutory exclusions? Check definiton of comp very carefully - that means go read the regulations and cross references thoroghly - there are some surprises in there. Then if you still are failing- 2(a) read the document carefully for gateway language, and 2(b) read Revenue Procecedure 2008-50. Once you have fixed 2, go back to 1.

You have it correct, plus you (under trustee's direction) can also change the interest rate.

IMNSHO, based on the facts given, they were ripped off. However, there may have been a lot of research necessary for loans, deposits, census information, etc that took extra time.

Due to the merger, the GAC is part of the Parent Trust and must be reported. It is merely held in a different location. By the way, good luck record keeping the GAC. I would bet it is a non-404© asset.

Since when are participant's required to be 100% vested in a frozen profit sharing plan?

I agree with Sieve. The termination administrator (is this a QTA?) should make every effort to determine qualification status of the plan - look on Freeerisa or free5500 for old filings, etc. This IRS filing to get into compliance allows the IRS to waive compliance fees, and the DOL will waive 5500s for a QTA. So I think the first question is whether this person is a QTA, and the second is why not try to get the plan 'requalified'. Fees are allowed to be paid from assets.

Have you tried a private locator service? Several advertise here on benefitslink.

And NOT, he could NOT receive that much SHMAC. Match is being calculated incorrectly.

Has the person satisfied eligibility? Do they satisfy requirements for a contribution? If they are not part of an excluded class, sounds like a document violation to me if they don't receive benefits.

The partner is up a creek without a paddle. He should have been excluded from the plan by name to avoid the TH minimum.

Why not get the plan document - offer a free review for the doctor.

Why not amend the loan policy to permit advance payments of principal?

Currently, you CANNOT roll a Roth IRA into a qualified plan even if it has Roth features.

Looks more like a pre-payment than a partial payment - recheck loan document. This should be permitted, and it should have been marked as additional principal. Loan not paid through 2012, and any missed payments currently could cause default!

The prototype sponsor has the responsibility to maintain a list of all adoptors of their plan. When someone terminates services with the prototype sponsor, the sponsor has the right to remove them from their list unless specific actions are taken (that means whatever the sponsor wants) to keep the plan. WIthout a sponsor for the document, it becomes an individually designed plan. THe prototype sponsor is withing their rights to remove (unsponsor) a document for a particular adoptor. I believe this is all addressed in the M &P rules in the annual rev proc for determination letters.

Did you test for affiliated service group? ALthough you may have key employees in B, they have no contributions and no account balances in B, and so B cannot be a Top Heavy Plan. Unless A is serving as a common paymaster, unless...... THere are a LOT of things to check to make sure you do not have any of a myriad of problems, such as options on the stock and .....

First, Mr. Bury is correct in his calculations - for a correct population an age-weighted plan is 'better' than a new comp plan. What is overlooked is that a defined benefit plan can produce the same same results as a new comparability plan (love the term 'arcane') but at a much higher cost to the employer. YOu must have an Enrolled Actuary and lots of regulation, and no flexibility. I guess Mr. Bury has not heard of Cash Balance plans! Gee - a super new comparability plan, but with the drawbacks of a defined benefit plan. Mr. Bury supported the Dogget proposal last year also with the same arguements. He apparently does not listen to his clients. If he so dislikes the plans, why does he sell and support them? If he is ethically against them, then he should not do them.

Under code, HCEs are not disaggregated. Under regs HCES are disaggregated. YOur software should give you the choice.

But what if the funding vehicle is a custodial account in mutual funds rather than the antiquated annuity? Why should the plan be forced to keep a former employee on the books who has taken all but the loan as a distribution, who is now creating second/third/who knows how many distributions? Loans should become due and payable on ANY distributable event. (in my opinion)

The question is not if a K-1 is received, but if any amounts on the K-1 represent earned income rather than passive income.

RGF will export a file which can be imported into the DOL IFILE system, which is then used by the client to sign and submit. You will need additional ids to do such.

It was a LONG time ago, likely I ran across it in the late 70s. Research would have to be under mandatory contributions.

Youngsters you are. In mandatory contribution plans, the IRS opined that a mandatory 6% was ok, but not higher. So 3% should be fine. Yes in an EACA the employee can elect a lower percent (if the plan does not have minimum) but the IRS again feels that 3% is ok, and accelerators can go to 10% without participant consent. (must go to at least 6% - there it is again). Sales and getting people to start deferrals and then pushing them up is a whole different matter.

Since aggregation of pay, deferrals and match are testing issues for ADP/ACP tests it would appear to be a problem at first blush. However, since a SH plan is exempt from testing, I don't see a problem.