pmacduff

Ok Tom (& Dave) here goes:

Sue - Thanks so much for the reply. Because I updated both to Version 7.0 Relius and Version 8.5 Crystal, I thought it would be a good idea to update all my custom reports. I know what you are saying, I do have the "verify on print" checked on all of my custom reports. I figured with both version changes it would be a good idea to do them all now, rather than in the throes of busy season when I might run into a problem. Thanks again. Patti

Tom - thanks for the compliment...Everyone - The order form for the survey that AndyH mentions is available on the ASPA website (aspa.org) under the "What's New" section (scroll down). It's not under the "members only" section, so I assume that anyone who wishes to can order it for $75. I tried to attach the order form, but it's a *.PDF file format and wouldn't attach to this thread!

ANNEBV - The 945 is supposed to report the total tax liability and should balance to your total paid. If December deposits for 2001 distributions were made in January of 2002, that would be considered a December liability. Deposits made throughout the 12 months of 2001 should equal the total tax liability for all of your 2001 distributions. Remember also that the line 8 by month only need be completed if the total tax liability was over $2500. Hope this helps.

How much experience do you have? How many plans/clients are you responsible for? How much of the plan administration do you do? Do you have any desiginations ie., from ASPA or NIPA? There are so many variables here, it's hard to tell where to begin. I also realize that location has a lot to do with it, as far as demographics, I see you are in Iowa, perhaps there is someone out there on these boards in your area who could help you get a better idea. I'm in upstate New York and can tell you that the salaries here vary widely all over the state and not just between upstate and New York City!! Sorry I wasn't more help. Good Luck.

Pax - I think Sara H. is looking for salary numbers for a Pension Administrator, not a complete benefits person! Many people I know have searched a long time for "industry standards" as far as what an administrator should make, I've never seen anything and the salaries seem to vary all over.

As someone who used to work for a Nationwide PPA, I do know that Nationwide used to have a form that was actually called a "letter of acceptance". If memory serves me, it was something along the lines that the accepting plan (at Nationwide) was or was intended to be, in fact, a Qualifed Plan. Every now and then when we processed a rollover from a conduit IRA or another Qualified Plan to one of our Nationwide plans, we were asked by the SENDING investment firm for one of these forms. I always thought it was unnecessary as you mentioned because why would the SENDING firm care if the receipient plan was Qualified. Oh well. Extra precautions I guess.

The original post refers to "pension" plan. If the employer had been "prefunding" their contribution and now decided to wait until the end of the year to fund; I don't see any impropriety. As a prior thread mentioned, pension prefunding is a "nice" thing for an employer to do, but not required in a Pension plan and certainly not in a Profit Sharing Plan. I find it hard to believe that the employer was talking about deferral contributions being delayed as we all know that would be absurd in this environment. It must be an employer contribution. As far as the employer instituting the "last day rule" in the plan, I agree that there should be some sort of participant disclosure required. However, without more detailed information, it's hard to say. Although it may be a bitter pill to swallow, it is possible that the company has done nothing wrong. Sorry to play "devil's advocate", but someone has to!

We have updated to Relius version 7.0 with the new 8.5 Crystal Reports. I have many "custom" reports that I keep in my Crystal Directory. Is there an easy way to update these reports from the old Crystal version? I started to open each report, verify the databases, and update, but it seems to me that there ought to be an easier and faster way to do this. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

MSMA - I printed the instructions for that line, and I think it might answer your question. Please see the attached Word file.

It's not hard these days to find a notary, I would be suspicious of someone who refuses. Usually this means that something is up and I would press the issue. If the Plan requires the spouse's signature, the notary is simply verifying that it is, in fact, the spouse signing. I've been told that if the plan is not subject to the J&S provisions, the spouse's signature is not required. I think most administrators get the spouse's signature as an additional protection for the plan regarding the distribution. Just my opinion, no cites handy.

Moe - I'll give my answer and then wait for the wolves! An age weighted plan, even prior to 2002, uses the same "rate" to compute the contribution allocation for all employees based on a future estimated annuity amount, however in conjunction with age, so older employees receive a higher allocation. The theory is that they have fewer years to retirement, less years to fund. We used this many times for our small clients where the owner was, say, over 55 or 60, but his employees were all much younger. This gave him the "lion's share" of the allocation. So, although an age-weighted formula uses the same annuity purchase rate for all employees, the allocations are skewed in favor of older employees. In a new comparability plan, there are many different annuity benefit rates, based on class, points, etc. for example. The testing is then comparing all rates and classes for HC and NHC. So it is my opinion that these plans are, and always have been, different. Also, a new comparability formula, although also influenced by age, considers other factors by nature of its formula. This can benefit many of our employers where the owner may not yet be older, or has a staff closer to his or her age group, an age-weighted would not work.

Well Shafter, I think you may be right. I found the following under code section 402: (2) Distribution of excess deferrals (A) In general If any amount (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as ``excess deferrals'') is included in the gross income of an individual under paragraph for any taxable year— (i) not later than the 1st March 1 following the close of the taxable year, the individual may allocate the amount of such excess deferrals among the plans under which the deferrals were made and may notify each such plan of the portion allocated to it, and (ii) not later than the 1st April 15 following the close of the taxable year, each such plan may distribute to the individual the amount allocated to it under clause (i) (and any income allocable to such amount). The distribution described in clause (ii) may be made notwithstanding any other provision of law. The only problem I can see is if the monies from the first plan have already been rolled to the second plan........ Any other thoughts out there?

As MTransue said in the prior post, the first amount deferred went toward the limit, therefore the excess is in the second plan with the match. The participant would lose that match and have a refund of the deferrals. It doesn't matter that the 1st balance was rolled to the second plan. It just won't work!

That would be nice, huh? Unfortunately, we use Corbel as well, and I'm not familiar with other prototypes, anyone else out there?

Jim - You're not really "amending" the plan, but rather declaring a safe harbor contribution for the upcoming plan year before December 1st of any given year. I think that this "turns the safe harbor off and on". The plan document, I believe, states that safe harbor may be used in any given plan year and that the "Notice to Participants" will be required 30 days prior to any plan year in which safe harbor will be effective. Therefore, the Notice, and not an amendment is required each year.

One big problem I always run into with Profit Sharing Plans comes when in years that the employer decides not to make a contribution to the plan, but pays the insurance premiums anyway. They never seem to realize that the premium payment counts as a contribution when made by the employer and not taken out of the plan assets. To compound the problem, many times the owners are the ones with policies, thereby making the plan discriminatory! I've NEVER had a plan with insurance run smoothly. Also - I'm with maverick...at year end it can be like pulling teeth to get any; much less accurate; information from the agents and/or insurance company. I've always been in the small plan market, where these problems are magnified. So that's my two cents to add to maverick's.

Footnote (4) in your tagdata file references a code section and seems to pretty clearly state that you cannot roll a Simple 401(k) into a Simple 401(k) so I'm not sure what your question is. Did you look at 401(k)(11)(B)(i)(III)? That code section states that a Simple Plan can only take deferral and matching contributions.

I'm with rcline - A year ago in a past life, I used to administer a 401(k) plan with approximately 600 participants with 68 outstanding loans by the 4th year of the plan, but none of the individual plan years had had more than 25 new loans. The accoutant performing the 5500 audit and I were questioning the Reg Z stuff and I believe one or both of us called the IRS (at the time, not PWBA) and were told that it was 25 new loans per year, not 25 total before Reg Z info was required. Just practical experience, but hope it helps!

salford - If possible, if you could report back in the future regarding your experience with the DOL/PWBA, it would be appreciated. Working for TPAs, I have answered questions for plan sponsors from the plan side, but never heard from a participant what kind of response and information they get from the DOL/PWBA. Thanks in advance.

If you don't care about "making waves" for your former employer, contact the Department of Labor. They will usually get the particulars from your side and then from your prior employer and determine if anything was out of line.

How about calling the DOL anonymously and posing the question to them? This would at least tell you the DOL preferred method of fixing the problem and you can advise the client accordingly.

I still say no, she cannot purchase the policy directly from the plan. The policy must first be stripped of its cash value, ownership transferred to her by the Trustee, participant replaces the cash value personally once the policy is outside the plan. My reasoning is that her monies entering the plan for the purchase would be considered "after tax" monies similar to a loan repayment. In order to maintain the tax deferred status, my opinion is that the replacement of cash value by the participant has to occur outside of the plan. Most plans do not allow after tax contributions and those that due have testing, etc.

Sorry QDROphile...I'm with you now!

It isn't the "sale of a plan asset" to a participant. If the plan allows in-service distributions on or after 59 1/2, the Trustee is simply allowing the participant to take distribution of the insurance policy as opposed to a cash distribution. That is not a prohibited transaction just an in-service distribution. Also - the cash from the policy remains in the plan - no actual distribution to participant. Imagine, if you will, another scenario...life insurance policies are not supposed to remain in effect in a Qualifed Plan after attainment of Normal Retirement Age. What if you had a participant continue working after Normal Retirement Age who wanted to keep his/her insurance coverage? Wouldn't the Trustee need to transfer ownership to that participant as well? Would you consider that a prohibited transaction? If so, how would the insurance be handled? Just some food for thought.