Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

For eligibility you must consider years of service before the effective date of the plan. So no employee was hired before 7/1/00?

I would berate them and get in their face until they agreed to defer.

You would only submit any of the demos if you were requesting an IRS determination of what the particular demo demonstrates. You certainly do not have to request a determination of the nondiscrimination testing if you do not wish to.

Merlin, I suggested changing the val date in the year prior to termination for future cases (this example is too late). Rev. Proc. 2000-40 Section 6.01(5) does not allow a change in the funding method in the year of termination unless as allowed in section 4.02. FredR has already said the plan is not fully funded and would therefore not qualify for this exception.

If your valuation date is at the end of the plan year, wouldn't your plan year end as of the date of distribution? That being said, I would argue that you would perform the valuation with assets of zero and whatever liabilities you may have net of the distributions received, if any. This situation is best avoided by switching the valuation date to the beginning of the year in the year prior to termination, assuming you know about the termination at that time and it doesn't cause any unwanted funding problems.

Yes.

If the methodology is spelled out in the plan document, and it most likely is, you must use that methodology. If it's not, then a reasonable method may be used, one being the IRS default method.

Some will argue that you accrue the liability and net out everything in the same year, but I am not one of them. I agree with your approach.

Mike, three points. One, I understood the discussion, but was trying to point out another potential option. Two, I did not follow your second point. From Announcement 98-1 1.2.1.1(2) I present the following (there is also a nice example, which I did not include): "A special rule provides if amounts required under IRC 412 were paid for the preceding year but were not deducted solely because they were not timely paid for IRC 404, they are "includible contributions" and are deductible under the IRC 404(a)(1)(A)(i) rule for the current year. Note, however, that total deductions under IRC 404(a)(1)(A)(i) are subject to the applicable full funding limit." Third, my post was lacking in information and for that I feel the shame.

You also have a situation where the contribution could be considered an includible contribution and deducted in the following year without regard to any limiting factors under 404.

Modifying a volume submitter does not automatically make it an individually designed plan. Otherwise, why would you be able to submit a volume submitter document to the IRS, pay only the $125 fee and just need to provide a listing of modifications to the volume submitter document? If that were the case, few plans would be able to meet the criteria for word-for-word adoption.

David, a good faith EGTRRA plan amendment is timely if it is adopted no later than the later of (i) the end of the plan year in which the EGTRRA change in the qualification requirements is required to be, or is optionally, put into effect under the plan or (ii) the end of the GUST remedial amendment period for the plan. Adopting EGTRRA provisions does not accelerate anything with with regard to the GUST restatement deadlines.

Tom, I agree with you. But that would be the case with any 401(k) plan, not just safe harbor 401(k) plan regarding the document wording.

PJW, if the notice was not provided and the plan had to pass nondiscrimination testing for the deferrals and match, it would become like any other non-safe harbor 401(k) plan for testing purposes. There would be no special requirement to use one testing method or another simply because the notice was not given.

And don't forget the enrolled actuaries. They can sign the form as well, which stinks because I really don't enjoy it.

It wouldn't make sense to use Manulife's EIN because there could easily be a situation where the plan uses two different companies to house assets and both prepare 1099-R's. In fact the Schedule R allows for more than one entry on line 2.

You would not have to attach the 5558 in the case of a timely filing. In fact our software system would give you an error if you checked that an extension was attached before the first filing due date.

I have included an attachment noting that the Schedule B is not required because the plan terminated in a prior year, but have still received DOL error letters. So, each time I have had to write responses, but they have never come back a second time, so at least the responses register.

Unlike jpod, I am not quite sure where you are coming from. First, in any loan where annuities are an optional form of benefit any competent adminstrator would realize the need to obtain spousal consent at the time of the loan. Why do you think they didn't? Second, I do not understand the relevance or the content of the second sentence. Third, why is this situation any different than a loan from a DC plan where there is an existing account balance and an existing loan in default? In that case you would clearly offset the account balance. In this situation you have a loan from the DB plan and an existing benefit. Why is offsetting it not the clear answer? Qdrophile asks why this deadbeat is any different. It's not, but in this case you are asking the deadbeat to pay you but you already have the money.

Thanks MGB, you have been very helpful in answering my last two questions. I will now consider you my new hero.

My understanding of the new rules for plan years beginning in 2002 is: 1 - Now small plans (100 or less participants) can deduct up to the unfunded current liability, without regard to plan amendments made within the last 2 years for HCE's. 2 - Terminating plans can deduct up to the amount needed to make the plan sufficient for all benefits, not just guaranteed benefits. Is this correct? Now back to #1; my software references amendments made to professional service organizations as playing a role. I cannot find any information on how this relates. Any ideas?

Who is who?

MNR, this is ABSOLUTELY a controlled group. There is no question. There is no doubt. Let's pretend R. Butler is God (he's not, but I am just pretending) and His Word on this matter is Gospel.

You will have to outlive pax and Tom Poje by about 50 years. Good luck on your mission.

R. Butler, are you saying this may be a controlled group?