Hojo

Yes, that is what I am saying you "should" do, otherwise you might need a SOB notice as you might be decreasing the Acc Ben. Well, I never really thought about it, but I guess IF you issued a SOB notice you could get away with only looking at the AB at NRD. However, if you don't issue a SOB notice, then I think you must look at every point after NRD to make sure the AE of that AB, at LRD isn't greater than the AE of the NRD AB at LRD. In other words, you can't just look at it at NRD and LRD. You need to check the AB at all points in time in between. From a practical matter, for a longer service person, with modest accruals, the AE of the NRD AB will most likely be the greatest, however, if they have a large accrual in one year due to a high pay or a benefit increase, you could find the AE of an AB from a later date is higher. I agree with Effen here. That is how I was always taught to calculate the AE of the NRD benefit for all calculations. It doesn't generally happen that an accrual is greater than the AE one year and not the next or vice versa, but it definitely can happen and have seen it on a few occassions.

Don't know how it works in FT Williams exactly, but there are two ways around this in ASC that you may be able to similarly use. Option 1 - Enter your email address instead of your clients. Once you submit the form, you will get the email asking your to electronically sign the form. Either forward that email to your client, or write up a better email with directions for your client incl;uding the secure link. When the client electronically signs, you will get the confirmation and can pass that on to your client as well and thanking them for another successful/painful year. Option 2 - If there's room for more than one email address (seperated by commas for example), enter your email address as well. This way, when its signed you will also get the email confirmation. (not sure if that's available on FT).

There are two things here. 1) As, Andy mentioned, the plan can provide that upon the date the limitation ceases to apply to the plan, the participant can receive the reamining portion of their benefit in the original (restricted) form elected, so you need to verify what the plan says; and 2) The participant must elect a lump sum, have it restricted and choose another form of payment in the meantime. The actual election of a lump sum is important here.

1) Is this a new TPA and are they aware of the Age 62 NRD or are they doing a quick valuation based on incomplete information? 2) Is this participants actual NRD Age 62 or is it something like 62/5 and their NRD is actually 65? 3) Are you certain that the plan document doesn't already account for late retirement from 62 to 65?

The comp limit if there are less than 3 years of service takes the average based upon actual service, including fractions of a year. However, the total number of years cannot be less than 1. If service is not over consecutive months, then months during which there is no employment can be ignored. For example, if an employee is hired on 1/1/2008, terminates employment on 6/30/2008 and is rehired on 10/1/2008, then the average compensation as of 12/31/2009 would be the total compensation while employed, dived by (1 + 9/12) years. (per Dave Farber)

Exactly. Your final numbers depend on the actual contributions to get NEI. It's kinda backwards form how you deal with most plans.

If you have an old address, you can always try the following..... https://www.berwyngroup.com/db/Samples.asp

IMHO, "No." Filing for extension grants you additonal time; it doesn't say you have to take it. Prior to EFAST, you wouldn't have resubmitted the paper form, would you? Thanks for the input. I agee with you, but I'm getting pushback from some people here. I can use your example though (came to me as a "Duh!" moment). Thanks for the input.

I have a client who was asked to electronically sign their Form 5500. It didn't look like they would make the deadline so we filed a Form 5558 extension yesterday. Today, the client electronically signed the Form 5500. Do I need to go back and check the box with the "extension of time" and resubmit?

The once covered always covered may only apply to professional service providers (missed that part in your initial post)....I'll look to see if I can find something.

Once covered, always covered.

http://www.datair.com/rates.htm click on each year, highlight, copy, paste.

Yes, since you used the PFB as a contribution since 35 is "Balances elected for use to offset funding requirement" and the excess next year that you can add to the PFB will be 3,000. Also, timing becomes an inssue for BOY plans and the rollforward of the balances.

I basically think that what everyone is saying is that if this were a PBGC plan, then yes, BUT since it's not and there are no regulations to help you determine this, the best guess interpretation follows as if it were a PBGC plan.

Considering the instructions explicitly say "alternate payees entitled to benefits under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) are not to be counted", I would say that no, you should not count them.

This was actually covered/tested on the 2012 EA 2B exam. The answer is once vested always vested.

Isn't the daughter already an owner based on deemed family ownership?

Also, the 415 Comp limit is based on a life annuity and has to be adjusted for form of payment.....way too many issues here.

Has anyone done this even more recently? Do you have any sample language of the letter to the IRS? Did you still have to go back and submit revised filngs or did they take care of it on their end? Thanks

The reason they didn't do that is for logistical purposes. Writing proration into law to help high paid individuals is counterintuitive and complex. They'd rather make the law simple and save employers 2%.

To protect against seasonal income being limited on a prorata basis, i.e. if you make $5,000 a month January - November and $200,000 in December, a pro rata limit of $240,000 would mean that there is no limit January - November and a limit of $20,000 for December so your limited 12 month salary would be $75,000 instead of $240,000. It simply makes the regs easier. Limit is based on the limit in effect at the beginning of the 12 month period.

Don't mean to rehash this, but this question was asked on the EA-2A exam a few times.... Fall 2010 #17, and Fall 2009 #22. The answers are consistent with my previous response in that you annual limit is based on the limit at the beginning of the 12 month period.

Well said.

In the micro market, DB plans should be see as long term benefits for employees, DC plans are short term tax shelters for employers.

The regs say that for non-calendar years, the compensation limit is the limit in effect on the first day of the year. This also applies to calendar year plans that use a definition of compensation over a different 12-month period from the plan year (ie highest 60 month avg). Thus: 10-01-2007 - 09-30-2008 $225,000 10-01-2008 - 09-30-2009 $230,000 10-01-2009 - 09-30-2010 $245,000 10-01-2010 - 09-30-2011 $245,000 10-01-2011 - 09-30-2012 $245,000 Total $1,190,000 with a 60 month average of $19,833. You can't double count limited plan years.