JanetM

As David said, only if the plan permits. If this is plan that allows deferral changes at anytime, then yes you can change for every check. If the plan limits that numbers of changes, then you have to follow the plan. Is there a TPA/recordkeeper who would be doing this - or is it a small plan with employer or HR/payroll department communicating with employees?

W-2 2007_iw2w3.pdf

Speaking from experience - don't take it on. You will be responsible for all the sins and omissions of the previous sponsor. Even if they were perfect in operating the plan. Here is what I have seen happen. 10 years from now someone will come along with copy of a statement and say they never got their money. So is you take it over get all the plan history as you will be the one to deal with the questions later. For what its worth, we took over a few dc plans in early 2000. Participant shows up and says they never got paid. We have no record of them. Seem they were paid by prior TPA but the check was never cashed due to bad address. Guy got a lawyer and it was a mess. Believe me it was the one time I was glad to have the IRS come to my rescue. Right about the time I explaining to the attorney the guy gets notice from IRS about unpaid tax on distribution he didn't report.

From what I have seen 2009 will be the year we see it. DOL just opened up for comments on 12/17/07.

Military folks don't get pension. They retire and get "retired pay" that is subject to COLA adjustments. You can't use QDRO to divide this payment. Here is site on USFSPA - Uniform Services Former Spouse Protection Act. Check out the FAQ at the bottom of the page. http://www.militarydivorceonline.com/usfspa.html

It looks like you have contradictory terms. You need to get plan sponsor to make decision on which way it should be and them amend the doc language to fix the problem.

It could be the bank/trust company/fund that issues the payment as agent for the plan. That is how ours are done. Trust company EIN and address are given as payer.

You are quite chipper this morning Tom. Nice answer.

Sure you can make two year eligibility for profit sharing but it must be 100% vested at that time. Be careful how you implement. Those already working but on in the plan are going to see it as take away. Would suggest you apply it to those hired after the effective date of the amendment. 3% NEC and be one year wait and it must be 100% vested. Why not allow deferals from day one? Won't cost you a dime.

No 1099. Mistake of fact is reason. I owe $1000 P&I, pay back $1,050. The $50 is over payement and gets returned. If not it has to be recharacterized as after tax contribution. You can't overpay the loan to slip more $ into the plan. If you could some HCEs would take advantage of this to get around comp and contribution limits.

I did a search and I found that this applies to directors, officers, & principal security holders. It deals with their reporting to SEC insider trades within 2 days of trade date. 10b-10 means that broker/dealer/fund must report quickly so the report can be filed with SEC. I couldn't find anything that related to ordinary participants in any type of plan. But I could have missed something.

A PT that is not corrected is treated as a new PT for each tax year. So if your PT started in 2002 heres what I would do. Mark 25a as other than discrete and then in 25b list each year the PT went on, unless you filed 5330 for it already for a prior year. Make sure you use the initail transaction date in 25b section b. In column C is where you clarify the missed years.

Reg I believe applies. 1.401k(a)(6)(iv)(A) (A) General rule. --Qualified nonelective contributions cannot be taken into account for a plan year for an NHCE to the extent such contributions exceed the product of that NHCE's compensation and the greater of 5% or two times the plan's representative contribution rate. Any qualified nonelective contribution taken into account under an ACP test under §1.401(m)-2(a)(6) (including the determination of the representative contribution rate for purposes of §1.401(m)-2(a)(6)(v)(B)), is not permitted to be taken into account for purposes of this paragraph (a)(6) (including the determination of the representative contribution rate under paragraph (a)(6)(iv)(B) of this section). So for per capita QNEC it would depend on the amount and the compensation.

Forgive the basic quesion. Aren't prevailing wage plan participants covered by collective bargaining agreement? If they are you can exclude then by statute.

Wouldn't that be condition of employment? Same as requiring uniform or other behavior? IMHO I think if you offer some sort of advice/educational tool to all employees that will help them select investments you could mandate that elections are not valid unless they include the investment selections.

They give you ten lines for a reason. They want each one spelled out.

If it were me, I would use the rate in effect at year end. Now if they due a true up match you may have a problem doing that.

IMHO no. That change in status is for covered dependents, when they satisfy or cease to satisfy eligibility requirements. Based on facts you gave, there is no change in employees eligibility status, so that doesn't offer special enrollment.

Keep it simple and just return the loan overpayments. Another alternative, is the participant elects and if plan has after tax contributions is simply to recharacterize the amounts.

Prarie Dog would be better mascot. Or maybe a mole.

Okay, I see now. HMMMMMM looks like you will have your hands full for a bit sorting this one out. Good Luck!

Forfeit the balance, allocte to others and move on.

Not required. Most plans find it is easier to set up participant called Mr. or Ms. Forfeiture and use the default fund(s) of the plan. If this plan doesn't have default, investment committee or plan sponsor need to document the selection of the fund used for forfeitures.

IRC 417 covers the QJSA rules. But realize that the regs don't say anything explicitly.

rcline am a bit dull today, how does fixing profit sharing change ADP/ACP or max deferral amount? I am basing this on logic, which may lead be completely wrong. Op failure would occur as you ran each test. Test 402g - make refunds if over deferral limit. Next test for plan limits if there are any. Fix any failures. Next test 415c and ensure person isn't over annual additions limit. Fix if needed. Last is ADP/ACP. In last post you say plan is save harbor, why are you doing ADP? Only do ACP if you have after tax contribs.