pmacduff

If you ever use freeerisa.com for 5500 forms, you will notice that they do not post the Schedule SSA information either!

I just want to note that it is a "female" crow - Patti

I believe the Plan would have to be specific in distinguishing between <$5000 and >$5000 in order to do what you suggest. I have a client whose plan makes those over $5000 wait until NRA, but those under $5000 are immediately eligible for distribution upon termination but the Plan specifically states this provision. If the Plan Document states that distribution occurs at a 1-year break and does not specify between <>$5000, I think that ALL distributions are subject to the 1-year break. Just my humble opinion....

I'm no expert, but the instructions for Schedule T say that it is filed for plans to report "compliance with the minimum coverage of Code Section 410(b)". I don't know 412(i) DB plans, but I would say if they are subject to the 410(b) minimum coverage rules, then you need to file it. Just a guess............

Rachel - I think the key here is how many PARTICIPANTS were in the plan as of 01/01/2002? It really doesn't have anything to do with the plan termination. How many participants had balances or, if 401(k), were eligible to participate, even if they did not defer? That count will answer your question....whether over or under 100.

What if you set up an "if/then" statement referencing the deferral $ in the database and then used the summary function in Crystal to total those for you? You could weed out ineligibles and terminees by variable. Or - maybe better yet - what if you used one of the Crystal ADP test reports and applied the summary function to it because the ADP would only have participants....are you looking for a straight count of deferring vs. non or a listing of names, too? Hope this helps.

I'm just wondering how anyone is finding Relius version 8.0+ to be? I'm currently on 7.3 and pretty happy with it...it seems like corrections to the 8.0+ versions on the website happen almost everyday, so I've been alittle leery about upgrading. Any pros &/or cons/comments appreciated.

I have had luck sometimes with the Client's Accountant if you have contact with or can contact them. They, at least usually have some idea what you're talking about when you refer to the coupons and the #945 tax! I too have been using the 8109-B when I'm at my wits end with a client. I know that if they are using the Employer EIN for the plan, they can call the IRS forms ordering line and order coupons, but, as you say, will end up with someone throwing them out when they arrive!

I've been in pensions for 13 years - In my Company, we find that the majority of our HCE employees due a refund have not even begun to think about their taxes when we process a refund before March 15th. We have always informed them that they must include the refund amount on their prior year return or amend if already filed. We also tell them that they will not receive a 1099-R until the next January (with a code "P"), but it is for reporting purposes only and can be placed with their prior year return (where the refund was declared). We use the code 8 for those refunds made after March 15th but before December 31st. I've always thought that it is a crazy way to do this...I agree that the refunds should be reported in the year distributed. This would make the most sense, but again, we are talking about the IRS/DOL ...speaking of making sense...how about the very nature of the ADP/ACP discrimination tests? To answer your question - I think according to the instructions, it is not correct to use a code "8" on a 1099-R for a refund given prior to March 15th. Just my humble opinion.....

Vesting schedule change?

"AMEN" Andy & Lisa! Good Luck Lisa and I'll watch for you in the passing lists!

This thread made me smile today... ! I have been in Pensions now for 13 years and have my hard-earned (for me anyway) QPA & QKA. I remember, the longer I was "in the business" the worse I seem to do on the exams. As a 6-year vet, I took the C2-DB with a 1.5 year novice, she passed, I failed. It was depressing to say the least. But I was always told by peers and supervisors that I was reading too much into the questions & trying to apply the REAL everyday situations I was experiencing to the questions. I would agonize over a review question that didn't seem to have a right answer. I think the best advice is to study hard and be as prepared as you can; don't dwell on those few questions that seem "questionable"! Seeing the great detail in the excellent answers on this thread said it all.....

Whew! Thanks for the info...I guess I'm pretty comfortable then with having the client get the audit done for 2002!!

Thank you - but that just delays the inevitable, right? The client still needs the opinion attached to the 2003 return for both the 2002 & 2003 plan years?? I'm thinking I may as well let the client have it done this year and get it over with...it shouldn't be very involved with the small amount of assets & participants with balances...

I have a new (2002) calendar year 401(k) plan. The plan inception date was 10/01/2002. The client has a 3 month eligibility, but they let everyone in who was an employee on or before 10/01/2002. I'm preparing the 2002 5500 form. The plan has 123 participants as of 10/01/2002. There were 26 participants with account balances on 12/31/2002 with a total plan balance of $2,798.36. (The plan got started late with the deferrals and only had 3 or 4 weeks of deposits.) I know I'm grasping at straws here...is there any way to avoid having to do Schedule H and the client needing an independent financial audit for the 2002 plan year? Since the plan was effective 10/01/2002, I'm pretty sure I can't get around having the BOY 123 participant count & filing a Schedule H with audit...any input is appreciated...

Never sure with Relius - perhaps the plans were loaded at different times or were takeover plans (??) which seems to create some strange issues sometimes. In any event, I'm glad you got it to work! You might want to run your question (why the program didn't select "required" after elig.) by Relius Tech Support sometime and see what they say...

Amy - I think you have more problems than the MRD - It is my understanding that an insurance policy MUST be out of the Plan when anyone age 65 (or over) retires. The policy can be (1) transferred to the participant & participant takes over premium payments and received a 1099-R for the cash value on transfer; (2) policy surrendered and the cash value rolled with the balance; or (3) cash value stripped, deposited to plan and rolled with balance, policy transferred to individual, individual takes over premium payments and replenishes the cash value "loan" with personal funds - no 1099-R for cash value is necessary. As far as I know, the policy must be distributed and cannot remain in the Plan. Perhaps someone can help me out here with more info...

Ok - I know this seems like a no-brainer, but every year I confuse myself. I have a client who failed the 2002 ADP test. 2 HCE took refunds, they were paid out by March 15, 2003. When I complete my 2002 form 5500; Schedule I, I use the actual total deferral deposits on the "participant contribution" line (2a(2)), which includes the excess. I believe the refund to be a liability of the plan, however if I put the amount in at the top(1b), the assets don't balance unless I reflect the corrective distribution on line 2f. I know that isn't right because I want to show the distribution on the 2003 5500 when it actually occured. How do others report this? Thanks in advance.

I'm on version 7.3 and I found this in the "help" information. Not sure if it was applicable in 6.0 - do you have these options when you run top heavy? Hope this helps! Manual method The Top Heavy test is performed on the plan that is currently open when using the manual method. The spreadsheet on the Top Heavy program window includes all plans maintained by the same employer or related employers, along with each plan's aggregation status (as designated in Plan Specifications). You can change the status by using the dropdown list in the Plan Aggregation column, however, you cannot select "Required" or "Not Required" (they are set only by Eligibility). The test will only include the plans that have a status of "Required" or "Required-Override" or "Permissive-Override." Batch method During batch processing, the plan being tested does not have to be open. The test will include all plans maintained by the same employer or related employers that have a plan aggregation status of "Required" or "Required-Override" or "Permissive-Override" in Plan Specifications (you cannot change the aggregation status via batch processing). Click What happens during Top Heavy testing to learn about how the top heavy test is processed. Copyright © 2002 SunGard Corbel (Relius Administration Help 7.2)

I have modified one of the "old" FDP reports on Relius to sort the Account Activity pages by division and print the division number & name at the beginning of each division group. I was also able to have the report sub-total by division. I have a small plan with only 4 divisions and the report worked great. Now - along comes a takeover plan with approx 78 divisions. For the most part, my report prints fine, however I have a few employers with only one previously terminated employee who received distribution during the valuation period I am processing (01/01/2003 - 03/31/2003). The employee prints out after a prior division sub-total, but does not start a new page with the division name and number at the top. Is this a sorting issue or do I have some grouping coded incorrectly? About 5 Divisions out of the 78 are not printing division # & name. I have tried various things, the "keep group together" codes, double checking the divisions/division codes, etc. to no avail...Any input is appreciated & thanks in advance. Patti

I'm with R. Butler - we report the actual deductible contribution of $9,000, forfeitures are already in the assets of the plan, whether they reduce the contribution or reallocate.

Bill - I can't wait for Friday either, but the reason I assumed [b]03[/b] as the term & Participation dates is that your original thread said she was hired on 07/16/2002. If she was hired 07/2002, then she couldn't have terminated 02/02...are you with me? That being said, I agree on a 12/31/02 valuation report that she should show as ineligible! My thing would be as you said, I wouldn't enter a "future" termination date until the val period in which it occurs. I think we're on the same page now! Patti

Bill - I assume you mean terminated 02/01/03 entry date is 04/01/03, right? I guess you want her to show as Ineligible??, which I don't think the Relius system will do because she already satisfied the eligibility and was just waiting to enter. What is the issue here? Given the data you gave, I think it is correct in the system. Is there a testing issue or something? Sorry I'm not being any help.......... I just didn't know what you were striving for............Patti

I'm with QDROphile - I thought the mandatory 20% only applied to eligible rollover distributions...Mom can't roll this over. Also - I believe the check should be made payable to the Mom. Daughter can simply cash or deposit it because she has POA. Where's the issue?

Hi everyone - I'm back to those cursed loans on the reports! Tom - I tried your "If/Then, Else" statement on this thread. (My plan has deferral,match, rollover & loan accounts; everything is 100% vested. This client transferred 100% from one funding provider to another during this quarter I am valuing. When I use the If/Then... formula, the report shows the correct vested balance for the deferral/match/rollover accounts for the new fund, but it also shows the actual ending vested amount for the deferral & match funds under the old funding provider (which has a "0" ending balance). Any ideas? I assume I have to add to the statement, but I'm not sure how. I thought the {@AccountGroup} would've taken care of the fact that the funds changed. Thanks in advance. Patti