rcline46

Any discussion of fees might be construed as collusion, restraint of trade and other vile items. That is why it is unlikely you will see fees discussed. Besides, I don't want anyone undercutting me by $10 to get business!

What if you want to allow deferrals up to 100% or 11k? Doc may have lower rate stated.

Another reason not to have fiscal year 401(k) plans! Remember - the 402(g) limits are calendar year, and so is the catchup! So, in your example, we don't know until the december deferral is in. Then we would have - $600 excess (which would be taxble in 2001!) measured against the 1/1 to 12/31 deferrals. If the deferrals are $11,000 then the $600 would be catch up. Anything else - wait for IRS guidance.

In the nicest possible way, without insulting you or your company - DON'T DO IT. BUY IT. IT WILL BE CHEAPER. THERE ARE MANY RECORDKEEPING SYSTEMS OUT THERE.

Of course it is ok. Problem is that you can only DEDUCT under 404 25% of pay, so you would have non-deductible contributions. There is no penalty at this time for not having a surety bond. However, the DoL successfully prosecuted a plan sponsor who refused to get a bond this past summer. Removed forever as a fiduciary. I think fine and jail went along with it. If the volume submitter has no changes in language, the you get language reliance. No reliance on testing methods or results, but you never really had that after the submission year anyway.

The disability benefit would fall under a benefit, right or feature and you cannot take it away. Anyone in the plan at the time of restatement would retain the right to 100% vesting on disability.

There is nothing that says you test ONLY those who meet the maximum statutory eligibility! The regulations allow you to form two component plans - those meeting statutory, and those not. You must test BOTH groups. This capability extends over ALL testing, not just 401(k)/401(m) testing. Your search should be under testing - statutory exclusions.

Lots! You cannot have maximum integration in both a DB and a DC plan. This is in the 401(l) regs.

This has been discussed many times. Merger 12/31/01 at close of business is correct way. This was confirmed Monday in Washington by spokespersons from the IRS. Otherwise you will need another 5500 for 02, and if a Standarized plan may require another contribution. You DO NOT 100% vest unless you so desire. Merger should state MPPP contribution is due. Don't forget the 204(h) notice!

For MGB (fun car by the way): Why would you not reduce by the actuarial equivalent of benefits received? For owners receiving RMDs and still working we have had benefits reduced by the RMDs. IRS approved methodology on plan termination just last year (RMDs had been done for 12 years on the plan). Regular benefits would be treated the same, would they not?

Final for 12/31/2001. At merger the assets are deemed moved even if not yet re-registered. Note that the plan does not exist after the merger, so neither does the trust.

It would appear your question has to do with Key employees and Top Heavy. The rule that if a Key employee becomes a non-Key employee and their balance is removed from all testing still stands. Therefore, if a 5% Owner last year is no longer a 5% owner, they become a former key and you do not include their benefit in either the numerator or denominator of the fraction. The 5 year look back rule is reduced to 1 year except for any in service distributions.

79-64A says a terminated plan must provide an SAR to all participants and beneficiaries even thought they have terminated. The references lead to 2510.3-3(B) which is: (2) (i) An individual is not a participant covered under an employee welfare plan on the earliest date on which the individual— (A) Is ineligible to receive any benefit under the plan even if the contingency for which such benefit is provided should occur, and (B) Is not designated by the plan as a participant. (ii) An individual is not a participant covered under an employee pension plan or a beneficiary receiving benefits under an employee pension plan if— (A) The entire benefit rights of the individual— (1) Are fully guaranteed by an insurance company, insurance service or insurance organization licensed to do business in a State, and are legally enforceable by the sole choice of the individual against the insurance company, insurance service or insurance organization; and (2) A contract, policy or certificate describing the benefits to which the individual is entitled under the plan has been issued to the individual; or (B) The individual has received from the plan a lump-sum distribution or a series of distributions of cash or other property which represents the balance of his or her credit under the plan. Now dad gum it, there just ain't no blooming participants and the DOL is just plan wrong!!!!!!!! Strong opinion to follow!

My turn! My turn! OOOOHHHHHH I love it! Seems I am usually on the other end here. Cite please specifying anytime participants? Informal (as discussed above) is not binding.

The new proposed regs totally replace the 1987 regs as of 1/1/2002 - see Q&A 2 in 1.401(a)(9)-1. You cannot rely on the 87 proposed because they are gone.

First, in 2002 must follow the regs. But the problem of wanting more? Depending on the plan, can he just take more than minimum? If an IRA absolutely! If a Qualified Plan, then distribute all, put into an IRA and take what he wants. This is an easy fix.

I'll be there with 2 others from here.

Look at it this way - The SAR is in lieu of the 5500 because the government figures participants can't read the 5500. The 5500 is an end of year recap. Ok, so who are participants? If someone has been fully paid out, then they are a FORMER participant. Sorry, that does not give rise to being a participant. End of year participant is the only rule that makes sense.

Answer 1. Its the trustees problem assuming you are not the trustee. The trustee signs the Schedule P - a fraud item! Answer 2. Sell the darn thing. They are ALWAYS a bad investment. Answer 3. There are independent valuation companies, use them.

Your question seems valid on the surface. In fact our firm has had many discussions on it. First - how do you KNOW they are a FORMER participant? Only research can tell you this, and the research will tell you what happened. If you stonewall, the participant (ok, former particpant) calls the DOL and says you stole his benefit! Back to research, only now the DOL is involved and could audit! Bummer.

If the funds are to be allocated to participants but have not yet, then an SAR is required. If the funds are to be used for expenses or reversion only, no SAR. Sometimes the DOL issues non-sense. Preparing an SAR for 0 participants is non-sense.

Assuming calendar year - Oct 1 at latest for current year. If for next year, notices must be by Dec 1st, doc changes by Jan 1st.

99.99 % of documents state TH contribution is 3% of non-key pay, or if less, the highest % of pay received by any key employee. So - no annual adds, no TH. The other docs guarantee the 3% regardless of key contributions. As we have learned to say - RTFD.

New RMD rules are required in 2002, optionally to be applied in 2001. Why does client want old rules? In most cases the new rules provide lower (or identical) distributions.

Where is your trust accounting? Forget the service provider, that information is required for trust accounting and the trustees are responsible for it as fiduciaries, not some TPA. Your plan records unfortunately need to be kept forever, or at a minimum 30 years. There is NO guidance on record retention from anyone!