rcline46

Amazing, you got it right! I did not think anyone understood insurance anymore!

PWBA would be very interested in an uncooperative service provider. A call to the local PWBA stating your problem should trigger a call to the recalcitrant party.

Once eligibility for a contribution has been satisfied, it is considered accrued, and you cannot amend the benefit out. If the plan had an end of year rule, then you could name the HCEs out. If only 1000 hours, and they have 1000 hours, then you are stuck.

You are in the unfortunate situation of closing the barn door after the horse has been stolen. You have no proof of what you did (registered mail, return receipt) on a very important item. You do not know if the Post Office lost the mail, the company lost it or what. You may not even have copies in your files. The automatic enrollment function covers the company and makes any appeal tougher on your side. Its a shame that such valuable lessons come at such a high price. And, proving the plans to be significantly different is hard because they had to be designed to be equivalent! Good Luck

It is likely that the terms of the plan require you to actually stop working to collect your pension. You are no longer in A's pension plan so you cannot collect from there. You need to check the details of A's plan to see if you could collect a pension AND continue working. Generally this is known as an IN SERVICE DISTRIBUTION. Not many defined benefit plans have this feature.

Mergers and Acquisitions with qualified plans is a real problem since it seems in smaller businesses no one looks to the plan issues until too late. First, I think there is an arguement under regs that the separate companies can be tested separately. Read them carefully for when you have to aggregate. Second, it may not be possible under law for Company A to force Company B to be a member of companies A plan (as used in Standardized plans). Third, you now know why standardized plans are a VERY dangerous tool!

Ok, let's get started. This country is not a socialist or communist country, not yet. The first gross mistake is that the pension system generates a tax expenditure of $76 billion per year. Sorry, taxes are DEFERRED, not LOST so the author is off base to start. Second, unless pensions are MANDATERD (called Socialism or Communism) then plans will be instituted only if competition demands it or it is a benefit to the owner. If the owner has a better tax incentive for NO plan, the chances of instituting a plan is slim (ok, 401(k) plans excepted, maybe). The only AMERICAN way to increase coverage is to make it advantageous to the owners. The author of the article is incredibly misguided. IMNSHO.

Assets include insurance values UNLESS the insurance is an irrevocable commitment to fund benefits, ie a deferred annuity. Normal life insurance would be added to the assets and reported. If this is a defined benefit plan, you would find the inclusion / exclusion of insurance in the Schedule B asset instructions. See also instructions for Schedule H.

The right to receive a benefit at a particular age is protected under 411(d)(6). However, if the right is an early retirement right, one must actually retire to receive the benefit. We would need much greater detail on the Company A plan and how the plan was 'transferred' to Company B - spin-off, transfer of assets and liabilities and so forth. This could be a difficult discovery, but maybe worthwhile.

Participant is to get actuarial increases, not to exceed 100% of hi-3 comp. Interesting problem occurs if AE increase is greater than 415 limit prior to Soc Sec Retirement age, or 415 limit as adjusted post SSRA.

Based on the information provided I stand by my original comment. These are still employees of the company since they company retains control of the employment. Derrin Watson has an excellent book, latest edition coming out soon, called Who's the Employer. Has many examples of this kind of situation. It is invaluable.

It would appear that the original company is still in business and operating with the same employees. All it did was add investors. From what you presented, you never even get to the same desk rule. The leasing issue is another problem as the employees could become eligible for the leasing company's plan as well as the original plan.

To keep good employees will cost the company. It cannot be avoided. 1. Keep supplies full. Don't run out. 2. Keep technology up to date. 3. Continuing education certificates, memberships in professional societies, conventions, seminars. 4. Working conditions - appropriate management, make the employees happy they work for YOU.

A QDRO is determined by the Plan Administrator. Even if a DRO is deficient in technicalities and the PA can fill in the information, the PA can determine it is a QDRO. In my opinion as a non attorney, if the divorce settlement spells out enoough detail to cover the requirements of a QDRO, the the PA can determine it to be a QDRO.

First, the regulations were revised in 1993, and I can't believe you are actually testing in a year prior to 1994 at this date. However, the use of the midpoint between the safe and unsafe harbor rules for each rate group is acceptable and what we all use for cross tested plans.

Top Heavy always refers to the valuation date withing the immediately preceding plan year. If EOY valuation, some DBs and usually all DCs, then 6/30/99 is one date and 12/31/99 is the other date, short years are effectively irrelvannt. If BOY valuations, then 7/1/98 and 7/1/99 are the testing dates.

The document rules! However, by definition there is not a short limitation year (usually) for the first year of the plan, so 415 and 401(a)17 are not affected. Compensation used may be a problem since it could be limited to that earned from date of participation, which is 9/1. Could mess up you tests. 404 is always comp in sponsor taxable year.

Since the 402(g) limit is a personal, not a plan, limit said employee is done for 2000. They are still eligible for the plan and therefore are -0- in all testing, with a short year pay, 170000 prorated of course. Watch your other limits for short limitation year!

Richard, don't feel bad. I would not want to count the times my brain fogged over when responding to questions!

Bet bet is EBRI.com (I think). They do lots of studies.

If the return is due to a mistake in fact, and it is after the tax return is filed, the the sponsor must take it in as income. I disagree that it is a non-deductible contribution subject to excise tax unless it is over the 15% limit. It is an additional match or a forfeiture to be allocated. Now if the match is 'locked in' (very dumb thing to do in a document) then it must be a mistake in fact (bad calculation).

First, the IRS considered the plan terminated when substantial and recurring contributions ceased. Second, the regulations required you to 100% vest all balances on plan termination. Therefore all may have been vested some time ago. Most definitely all are vested now. The fly in the ointment are those who left recently who were not 100% vested and were paid.

Such a survey might be looked at as collusion, price fixing, all those good things. That is why you do not find much on fees, and practitioners do not discuss fees publicly, and often not privately.

If there are rules to be eligible for a contribution, such as 500 hours, end of year, 1000 hours, then NO contribution should be deposited until those qualifications are met. What does the document say about 'ineligible' participants? If it says to forfeit, then forfeit and allocate per document. If the contribution did not exceed the 15% limit, IT IS DEDUCTABLE. If you are very brave you might try mistake in fact and it goes back into income.

I agree. You need to determine 402(g) on a calendar year basis regardless of plan year. If more than 10,500 has not been deposited in 2000 and not more than 10,000 for 1999, then there is no extra deferrals. Maybe failure of ADP but that's it.