rcline46

Mark, my understanding of 412i is that if there is ANY side fund, ie money NOT in insurance contracts, the 412i exemption is blown up and a Schedule B required.

We generally set up for first full pay period after check.

You have a Benefits, Rights and Features failure in the plan. Get an attorney fast and find a way out. You are in disqualification territory.

In cases like this, participant is charged $12, plan or sponsor the add'l $3. Don't even think of asking the processing party to cut fees.

Please go to your document and read the matching contribution section VERY CAREFULLY. You just might find the document can be interpreted to say that you CANNOT CONTRIBUTE matching contributions which cause the ACP test to fail!!!! I would bet very few have actually read what their document says in the section on matching contributions and correction of matching contributions. Some very fun stuff in there.

I don't think so because one of the requirements is that the ADP test passes before and after the shift. It does not pass after the shift unless you do something else. And these regs predate current/prior testing, catchups and other good stuff. WHat is you opinion on using the technique with prior year testing?

He/she would appear to be a RESIDENT alien WITH a source of US income. So unless they can be excluded for some other reason in the document (interns, etc) then they must be counted as a non-excludable.

Although I agree with the answers, I have a more basic question - Why does everyone think the RMD date (for first RMD distribution only) is 4/1/xx?? It is not and never has been 4/1! It has always been 12/31. They allow it to be postponed to 4/1 of the next year, but one should NEVER confuse a postponement with what the date really is. IMHO of course.

Can't let you young whipper-snappers stand around all confused cuz you can't read (it IS in the original stuff ya know). Any trivia fans out there? Well squirmers - the answer is.... Oh now I can't just blurt out public schedule now can I? Would ruin all the fun!

Your test for NCE compensation must include ALL NCEs, not just those who have pay limited. It might be that under this condition the average may exceed 98%. There is no rule as to what a 'de minimus' amount is under 414(s). I feel comfortable at under 3%. Others have different opinions.

I vote for Blinky, cuz he gots the bestest thumbnail!

When the DoL/IRS gets around to finding out the 5500 has not been filed, who are they going to chase? There is no one to chase! What can they possibly do in that case?

Nothing has changed. Don't you love people who know your job better than you? Have them quote to you the IRC code that permits usage. Of course your answer is the document only uses stuff under 3401 (or W-2). It ain't there!

Ok, so its 11 billion dollars. As a % of total assets under PBGC control what is it? 5%, 40%, ....... I would opine that if under 15% of total assets, two good years in the economy would wipe it out.

As pax said, the answer is in the document. Even if it were amended it could call for 70 1/2 for certain non-owners. If not amended, definitely need to do distributions starting at 70 1/2.

You cannot use wages above $200,000 for anything in a qualified plan for 2003. Therefore since the wage cut off is $200,000, the match cut-off is 6% of 200,00o or $12,000 anyway.

There is one horrendous hole in the regulations on missing participants that leaves the sponsor in a difficult position. What to do if you just cannot find them? Forfeiture only causes the sponsor to have to pony up the money 15 years from now when the person returns. Of course if sponsor is going out of business then there will be no one to collect from. By the way, on plan termination for a plan with no annuity options, 411(a)(11) allows force out of any amount. New regs allow setting up an IRA account if over $1000, if you find someone to do it. Then it becomes the IRA custodian's problem!

In support of Yukon's position - if anyone takes a position because they cannot find any authority denying that position they do not need authority for the postion. Yukon is 'challenging' us to find statutory authority stating he cannot withhold 100% as taxes as he has been unable to find any. In fact, the redoubtable Mr. James Holland cannot quote any authority other than he doesn't like it. However, I think jkrad needs to try a couple of private locator services before he gives up.

GBurns was correct that I did not notice it was a 403(b) posting. However, I have seen incorporated not-for profits claiming 501©(3) exemption. Also note that the question mentions non-owners (which is what I keyed in on).

They can become an HCE if: They purchase or have option on more than 5% of the stock; They marry a 5% owner (direct, no double attribution); They are adopted by a 5% owner. That's about it.

Have you looked at the job offerings on benefitslink? Many give salary ranges.

First, I love seeing references to 'Keogh/HR 10' plans, since they have not existed since TEFRA in 1983 - after 20 years one would think the terminology would go away! Second, there is no cite that self-employeds can or cannot trustee their own plans. And since there is no cite then there is no prohibition. There only requirement is that a trustee must be a US 'person'.

My vote is yes because it is a new plan.

Of course there is. What is the event that permits you to take money from ANY participant's account? There is no failed ADP/ACP test, no inservice, no termination, .... The quesion is NOT what is the cite that prevents it, the question is if there is any cite the PERMITS this action, and there is no cite permitting it.

WDIK is correct, you use the actual from prior year.