rcline46

Oh, where to start. Standardized Prototype - Cannot get a LOD, cannot fail discrimination, amended by Sponsor for all of those wonderful 'Good Faith' amendments we are doing. Non-Standardized Prototype - Can apply for own LOD, availability of more options, some of which could cause a discrimination failure, can do Employer or Sponsor 'Good Faith' Amendments. Volume Submitter - can apply for own LOD, more flexible than NS Prototype, can only do Employer 'Good Faith' amendments. Individually Designed Plan - really should get a LOD, the world is your oyster, can only do Employer 'Good Faith' amendments. The real question is what are you trying to accomplish now with the client, and which document type best suits the needs of the client. Be VERY careful with Standardized Prototypes you get from someone else as you may be limited in investments. WIth any prototype the client will end up with and Individually Designed Plan if they change providers as the document sponsor will no longer sponsor the document for the client. And that can be a bad thing when it comes to restatement time!

Sorry GBurns, this is a SEP and there are NO exclusions! Only under $450 once eligible. And to answer the original question, it is only employed with no pay limit. Get a qualified plan and kill the SEP!

For sole proprietors and partners it is a stupid fiction. For a CODA to be effective, one must agree to make the deferral before the income is constructively received. We all know that. Since the income for these entities is DEEMED earned on 12/31, then there must be an election in place by 12/30 on the anticipated deferral. It matters not that the income will actually be determined some time in the next year. That only leaves the issue as to WHAT the election says - %, $, or MAXIMUM PERMIITED UNDER LAW. There are many opinions as to which is best or even permitted.

Its the old story - what does the plan document say? We have documents the permit a transfer, not distribution and rollover, from one plan to another if a participant is no longer eligible for the first plan. I have also seen union plans that treat termination from the union as a separation from service, but I do not know if the plan had a determination letter.

Thank you Derrin.

There is no 5500 due from the original sponsor (nor any schedules) in the year in which the PBGC takes over the plan. At least we have never prepared one!

Client has a Safe Harbor 401(k) Plan and just added a companion Defined Benefit Plan. The 401(k) plan would be Top Heavy but is deemed not Top Heavy due to Safe Harbor. The question is - do we still combine the 401(k) with the DB plan to determine if the aggregated group is Top Heavy? Of course the key employees benefit in both plans. Unfortunately the 416 regs have not been updated so there is no 'official' guidance, but maybe the IRS has said something at one of the conferences??

Do you mean the PBGC took over the plan and is responsible for the benefits? If so then since the plan year has not changed, and now the PBGC is the 'sponsor' of the plan, there is no 5500 due from the 'previous' sponsor. If the PBGC did not take over the plan, then we need to know what transpired to know what, if any, forms are required.

Joel, that suggestion does not eliminate the need for investment advice. How does an employee pick the best fund for their situation? It matters not what funds are offered, most employees still won't know which is the best for them.

Since TEFRA I don't see how the IRS can challenge since that created parity between the old Keogh plans and plans of corporations. That is why the definition of Earned Income is in the plan documents. The fact that a self employed person (sole props and partners) could get the full profit sharing limit has not been in question for over 20 years now. Congress has long ago spoken and the IRS cannot change it!

Why is everyone running around grasping at straws? It would be a much simpler solution to directly ask Ms. Choate or Mr. Watson what their reasoning is for making such statement! Ms. Choate? Mr. Watson? Any pearls of wisdom you can impart unto us?

Bet the document also says the forfeitures (suspense account) is to be allocated every year, looks like someone fell down on the job the year the forfeitures were created.

Believe in Derrin and not those who have a financial interest. Make them give you cites as to why you might ignore the employees. Have them get a written opinion from an attorney that it is ok.

It would neither be a new or a successor plan. It would just be an 'upgrade' of the paychex plan, with a new service provider and new assets. The assets would be transferred from the paychex funds to the new funds.

Family aggravation is gone. So unless the daughter owners more than 5% on her own, he is determined to be or not to be an HCE on his own merits.

youngsters! September, 1983.

As I prepare to leave for vacation: 1. Addams Family 2. name is missing, but does Sargent Friday ring a bell? 3. Dukes of Hazzard 4. 5. My Favorite Martian 6. The Beverly Hillbillies 7. Mod Squad? 8. 9. Wild Wild West 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. I Spy? 15. Dirty Dancing? 16. 17. M*A*S*H 18. Bewitched 19. 20. The Fugitive 21. 22. 23. The Odd Couple 24. Hey I beat 50%! And the others I don't even recognize most of the names.

I bet the DC plan participant CANNOT roll his/her distribution into the DB plan! Since the person is no longer an employee, such a rollover would violate the exclusive benefit rule. This is a disqualifying event for the DB plan.

Plan 1 - it is not a safe harbor plan unless the document says it is a Safe Harbor plan and notices are given. The match cannot even be considered a QMAC unless it has the same restrictions as the deferrals. Plan 2 - if it must be aggregated with plan 1 to pass 410(b) or any other testing, then all plans must either be Safe Harbor or Not. Also watch other B,R,Fs if aggregating. We need more information.

I remember, I Remember!!!! I remember when - if there were no key employees, the highest paid officer was a key employee!!! The 'way back' button got pushed. Under the new rules, no way is this person 'key'. A person may still be deemed an officer if they perform the duties of an officer, but they still have to make the pay to be key.

Interesting question. The Proposed Regs were withdrawn as if they never existed. Other than as an historical note, why would one want to clutter their mind with quite literally 'nothing'?

Actuarial variance does not sound that bad.

Anything with 'deviance' is too close to 'deviants', so I concur. Since we use statistical models (that is what a mortality table is) then we have rights to statistical terms other than 'deviance'. Actuarial model variations sounds good.

It is very difficult to prove a negative. However, if it is NOT listed under 411 and the regulations thereunder, it is not protected.

Why sell, just distribute this asset as part of the distribution to the trustee/owner at the value being carried in the plan?