rcline46

But they DID NOT say it was impermissible, they have NOT issued any kind of announcement that it is wrong. Why? It doesn't matter whether they think it is wrong or not, it is permitted under reg and law and their opinion isn't worth a hill of beans.

Lets see how much trouble I can get into here. I don't know what you mean by a 'wave' plan, so I will ignore that part. Your year end testing went something like this: 410(b) 70% test - FAIL 11(g) Amendment to add enough people to pass 70% - Not required in your document (PLEASE CHECK!!!!) and client said no. 410(b) ABPT test - PASS If you formula is comp to comp, you stop here because it is a Safe Harbor formula, and you do not need rate group testing. BUT - if pay to pay as you explained - how did someone end up under 5%??

My recollection is that EGTRRA removed the 10% excise tax for non-deductible contributions, but the contributions are still NOT deductible.

You did not say if you wanted immediate funding - which is now permitted thanks to EGTRRA, or if you wanted periodic funding. IRS really doesn't know what to do here. That is obvious because all we have is musings, nothing solid to go on. Best bet - convert to (group aggregate) FIL and amortize over 10 years.

There are several threads on this issue you may want to read. The basics are running a household is not a business, only employees of a business are eligible for a retirement plan (qualified!), therefore domestics are not eligible for a qualified plan.

Don't feel bad. Government forms do that to ALL of us at times!

Look at page 2 of the 5500, it has a place to report old sponsor name and EIN.

For Tom Poje, obviously you would not have the first day of the plan year as an entry date. It is not a requirement by the DOL or the IRS. The document would only mention 1/1 and 7/1. I never said it would be easy to administer! Just that it was possible.

I have researched this in the past. The effective date of the plan must be an entry date, after that you are on your own with the old priviso that you cannot keep anyone out more than 18 months. I don't see a problem.

The answer is both more complex and simpler than it seems. First, you must follow the terms of the document. In a grouped or tiered plan that ususally means you MUST allocate a contribution in any group on a comp to comp basis. How you choose the amount in any group is the trick, and if an integrated formula is used, so be it. And if done properly, this will pass on an allocations basis. If you have an anomaly, such as an NCE getting an itegrated portion you have to choose whether to limit them to the base percent, or use an 401a4-11g amendment to justify the additional contribution. The main question is why you let your client get into such trouble? You should be more on top of the situation so you change BEFORE the year end and avoid the problem.

There was a post here in the last oh say 6 weeks concerning DOL audits, the this particular item was being especially investigated in the Audit. Whoever posted it promised to update us when the audit was over.

FWIW, we had an ERISA attorney draft the language. What it actually does is readopt the previous EGTRRA amendment.

We have modified our Resolution to keep the previously signed egtrra whenever we restate a document (ours). We always do a new egtrra on any takeover plan.

The commission received by the broker is dependent on the agreement he has with the people he works for. Typical agreements range from 40 to 60%. Total commission from B shares held past the 'Deferred sales charge' period are typically higher than the 1 shot A shares. All of this should be disclosed in the prospectus.

four01kman - I completely agree. If you prove your worth to a prospect, they should not care how you get paid, and should hope you get paid well!

BigAl - I agree with foru01kman that on buy and hold, A shares of the same fund will outperform B shares. If your advisor is (primarily) fee based then he is doing the research for you, or should be. Extra research on your time, unless it is only a quick check on the advisor, is not necessary. four01kman - If your only source of income was commissions and 12b-1 fees from Vanguard and Schwab no load funds and no fees- hate to feel your hunger pains. You have to be paid somehow, either subsidized by other business, fees, or commisions. The less your living depends on the advisor income, the more impartial you become.

Without giving a direct answer certain facts have to be obtained. Why do you need a Financial Advisor?? If you need one, how are you going to pay him/her? If you need one, and you are paying them fees, then shouldn't you be taking their advice? If you are NOT paying them, how do you think they are paid? Commissions of course. Buy no-loads and you won't have the advisor for long. But then, you aren't following their advice anyway so what do you care. Vanguard loves ya! So back to the question, why do you have a Financial Advisor? Answer that question and the rest follows.

Bet the document says reallocate excess to other participants!! Check it out, might solve YOUR problem, but make the client rather unhappy!

Consider a Domestic paid by the corp, reimbursed by the Domestic's employer (usually ower of corp!) Not only is this legal, but since the person is not employed by the corp, the W-2 is irrelevant, and so are any hours. Treat this as the same thing.

Archimage, the lead question said the individual owner 100% and 79%, not that the first corp owned 79% of the second. THis makes it a brother sister not a parent sub. I believe the 415 rule only applies to parent sub so it would not be applicable here.

C'mon guys. Poor MR asked a serious question. Don't you feel at all sorry for MR? Obviously he/she never worked as an administrator in this business and probably never worked with such a bunch of flakes....er....oddballs......er.... unusual personality types... that's it, unusual personality types before. What was the question? Oh, incentive compensation. They don't control the amount of work. Various agencies control when it has to be done. CLients control when you receive the work. Phone calls interrupt your carefully planned day. And so on and so on.... Administrators work in the most uncontrolled 'professional' enviroment I have ever seen. They cannot do their job quicker, cannot get it done earlier, and can't postpone their work! A party after a major deadline, RIGHT AFTER! seems the best - Right Kirk? Money is always good. WHo has time for more time off?? So MR, the answer is - some bonus to show appreciation for a job well done, even though it had to be done anyway, and a party, a naked pizza party is as good as any other party.

I think y'all gettin' too fancy here. Lets look at facts. 1. A GIC is liquidated. I think that requires any g/l to be allocated. I don't see any difference between liquidating a GIC or a bond. The fact that a GIC is constant income and nowadays a bond must be at market has no relevance. Anybody remember amortizing bonds?? 2. I don't care if it is a 'swap' because it is NOT a swap. 3. If the GIC attorneys are so self assured no gain needs be posted, the most assuredly they have a DOL opinion letter, right? Oh, no opinion letter? Then they are NOT so sure!!! Have your Taft-Hartly plan get its own opinion letter, what's the big deal? If afraid of answer, then don't do it. Life is so simple.

You do not appear to have a controlled group but you did not give relationship of owners. You did not say if this is an Affiliated service group which it might be. Assuming no CG/ASG complications, the owners can have 40k in their own companies too. Just make sure they have enough hours to get an allocation. Why do you think they cannot get 40k in A and in their respective companies?

If you establish a 2003 plan today, you cannot possibly make it a SH plan if you slavishly adhere to the 30 day rule. That makes it absurd. However, the rules DO allow you to establish a plan as long as the participants have at least 30 days to make or change their elections. That is the part of the rules we live by, since this IS a new plan.

Sorry but I say YES, ABSOLUTELY, and I am doing just that. Make sure ees have opportunity to defer this year, HCEs do 5%, match 100%, allow over 50 catchup. could get $22000 to HCE! Then SH match for 2003. Since this is a new plan, you must give ees at least 30 days from notice to modify 2003 deferral elections even if they don't defer in 2002. I don't see anything wrong here at all. You are using the correct rules for a plan starting in 2003 established today. And I find nothing to prevent actually starting PSP this year, nor the CODA add on.