Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

While I will caveat this that I am not an expert, my understanding is not the same as yours. Without the signed certification by 2/28/02 (assuming this is a calendar year plan), the deadline in this case would be 12/31/02. Only by having a signed certification of intent to adopt the Corbel document would the deadline extend to 4/30/03. Looks like KJohnson beat me to the punch.

The plan termination date in no way affects the plan year. The final plan year will end on the date the assets are distributed.

Why would you want to change the plan year to correspond with the plan termination date?

The reasoning that the amendment is required is because there could be a scenario where the plan failed the MUT test and had to distribute dollars to the HCE's. This would be a violation of the 401(k) distribution restrictions.

I fold each schedule into the shape of an animal the schedule letter represents and ship the whole thing in a big box. For example, the Schedule A is folded into an alligator, the Schedule B into a barracuda, and so forth. Honestly, talk about meaningless discussions; this one takes the cake.

The amended return would consist of the 5500 and Schedule P.

Rhp, I wouldn't complete the form that way because the instructions clearly say to mark 1 if the IRS has not issued a determination letter for the plan. See here on page 3. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5307.pdf

Keep in mind if it's a projection, the documents might not yet be in place to substantiate it. Of course there is still time to adopt the EGTRRA Good Faith Amendments that would allow for this allocation.

I agree that since you did not apply for the determination letter with the first document, it is a request for initial qualification and the original signing date is put.

R. Butler, I agree that there is actual ownership based on the community property rules, but note in the example you referenced that the portion that is treated as community property is 1/2 of the total amount. Also, my reference to page 1.99 of the ERISA Outline Book does not deal with double attribution. Jaemmons, do you know where in Watson's book this issue is discussed? I would be curious to read it.

Merlin, I see what you are saying now and I agree that calendar year plans must be amended by 12/31/02. See this link as well on page 4. http://www.actuary.org/ear/pdf/spring_2002.pdf

Mike, installments are a common distribution option, but I have never seen one taken. Depending on how the document reads, it would be an equal amount taken each period (month, year, etc.) until his balance ran out. It differs from an annuity in that an annuity is tied to life expectancy, while installment payouts are not. If a person receiving installments were to die, the beneficiary would still receive the balance on the account. If a person receiving a life annuity were to die, then payments are ceased.

To issue the check directly to him without withholding 20% is not allowable. If his balance is over $5,000, I would say the 90 days has passed and he needs to complete new election forms. If his balance is under $5,000, you could cash him out (20% withholding) but not issue a new rollover check because again the 90 days has passed. So either way, your 2001 1099 is incorrect and needs to be corrected.

Your thought to file without the Schedule P and then follow up with an amended return seems like the best course of action to me.

Merlin, it depends when you are electing to use the 94 GAR Table. If you are electing to use it in 2002, then you need to amend the plan by the last day of the plan year in which you began to use it. If you elect to wait until it is required to be used (after December 31, 2002), you have until the end of that plan year to make the amendment. So for a calendar year plan where you are waiting until 2003 to use the 94 GAR Table, you have until 12/31/03 to amend your plan.

Jaemmons, I was reading page 1.99 of the latest ERISA Outline Book and wanted to note that Sal does not agree with your methodology.

You never HAVE to submit demos for any plan. But you are correct that they would not be applicable in your case.

Can you give more details as to the minimum funding requirements for each year and when they made contributions? Start with the year of overfunding.

Rhp, see question 4 from the same promulgation. It clearly indicates that the effective date controls. Q-4: When is a plan "in existence" for this purpose? A-4: In general, a plan is in existence on the first day the plan was in effect. Thus, payment of a user fee generally will not be required for any determination letter request filed by an eligible employer before the first day of a plan's sixth plan year. However, a plan established as a result of a spin-off from another plan will be treated as in existence on the first day the plan from which it was spun off was in effect. Also, a plan established as the result of a merger of two or more plans will be treated as in existence on the earliest date any of the merged plans was in effect.

10% of camp? Does this mean part of the tent and maybe a burnt log?

The logic is they are 2 completely different types of qualified plans. It would be like saying, "My car requires gas to allow it to run, but my toaster does not.".

You fill out the information in item 2 if the plan sponsor were the person to contact. If you wanted to be the contact, you would still need a POA and would not be able to just fill in your information. If you have a restated document, then you are requesting a letter after initial qualification and complete item 3(a) - 2 and put the original adoption date. Answer "no" if you have a VS plan in item 7d.

See the instructions to the new Form 8717. You can access them at the irs.gov web site. One thing I do know is that the original effective date of the plan needs to be on or after 12/9/89, as well as other qualifications, to be exempt.

I think the 3% implies the nonelective safe harbor. Always remember it can do triple duty: 1- satisfy the need for an ADP test; 2- satisfy top heavy; 3- be used to satisfy the 401(a)(4) requirements of which the gateway is a part.

Yes.