Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

While I agree with Janet's conclusion, I don't with this statement. A match is subject to anti-cutback rules, it's just that it isn't a cutback if the match formula is decreased prospectively, which is the case here. A person has to defer salary to have the right to the match and you certainly can't defer future pay.

Yes.

Fine advice, but this situation is reversed. Transferring a DB accrued benefit into a DC plan is not a good idea. The DB amounts transferred would retain their DB characteristics, including the fact that they are a defined benefit. A nonsensical result ensues if the DC plan were to have negative returns. Anyway, since the question references 2004, it's too late.

In my opinion, yes, you are subject to the 404(a)(7) limit. The old PLR (no time to look up the number) stated that participants with balances in the DC plan triggered 404(a)(7) even if they weren't receiving a DC allocation for the year. This situation is the reverse, but I believe the same principal applies. BTW, please don't post the same question twice. I just came across the second version.

Live and learn. Just consider it a premature tuition increase and maybe that will make you feel better.

You don't say whether the 20% was withheld voluntarily or mandatorily. If the latter, then this was an eligible rollover distribution not a hardship. An eligible rollover distribution is a distribution which is eligible to be rolled over into an IRA. Now comes the part where you kick yourself gaglitm if this was an eligible rollover distribution. There is an exemption to the 10% premature distribution penalty for college tuition payments if those funds are distributed from an IRA, but no such break for distributions from 401(k) plans. So, you could have rolled over the money into an IRA and then taken the money out of there to avoid the 10% penalty. Let's just hope that it wasn't an eligible rollover distribution in the first place.

No, not you. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...=0entry112740

I think someone is studying for exams.

True, but no one is doing a 2006 TH test right now.

One reason would be to recognize the potential inequity of apportioning costs on IA NC. It would be very easy for one of the partners to have askew costs versus the other doing it that way, and if you have ever dealt with partners, or multiple business owners, equality is paramount. It's like they are communists. Doing it on a PVAB basis is more equitable, although too not perfect if that pesky 417(e) ever affects the distribution amount.

I have no actual experience with this, but I would presume if you got a PLR granting the return of the dollars that the excise tax wouldn't apply. That would only make sense. However, kman, you didn't answer the questions posed. Are you sure you need to go as far as a PLR, as you might not have an excise tax problem in the first place?

But that is obvious since you can't defer what you don't have.

1. The due date of the tax return, including extensions, if applicable. 2. No The key is that the election on how much to defer must be in place by the end of the year as you mentioned is the case here. The election could even be something like - an maximum amount not to cause an ADP failure.

I'd be curious to see those articles as I too disagree with them. Care to share where they are? If a catch-up is not an annual addition, how can catch-ups affect the annual addition limitation?

Nrehme, don't take this the wrong way, but you need a much more advanced understanding that surely can't be provided by a spreadsheet. Without that complete understanding you simply should NOT be doing cross-testing. There are just too many rules to butcher. For now you need to contract this out to assist with your endeavor. For later, seminars, the ERISA Outline Book and some practical experience will help.

The turtle is aware. Andy, go with your heart.

You can't argue with my math though. 11:59.99999999 to infinity is the same as 12:00.00000000. C'mon, admit it!

The fact that you say the service is completed at 11:59.9999999999 means that is completed at 12:00.00000. Consider a parallel argument of a simple mathematical principal. What is 1/3? Answer 0.3333333333333333333333333333333. What is 3 * 0.333333333333333333333333333333? Answer 0.99999999999999999999999999999? No, the answer is 1. Thus 0.999999999999999999 to infinity is equal to 1. Don't you love math?

Jquazza, I disagree because you can argue two sides to which is correct. Going back to Lame Duck's post: I can argue that he doesn't satisfy the month of service until the instantaneous moment AFTER 2/1 is finished, thus he enters 3/1. At no time on 2/1 has he fully completed the month of service. It is not until that last day is over that the requirement is completed. Andy, you forgot about Willie.

Get some new reading materials. A key is a more than 5% owner, a 1% owner who makes over $150K or an officer who makes more than $130K. Attribution under IRC 318 is considered. So to your last question first, you say the guy owns 5%, but is it actually more than 5%? If so, he's a key. As for the child, when did he terminate? He isn't going to be considered a former key because he still is the child of a 5% owner, but he may be excluded from the test if he terminated more than 1-year from the determination date.

There is no way to fully tell if it's a 412(i) plan solely from the document since there are other requirements to fulfill; for example the plan must invest only in insurance contracts, etc.

In answer to your question, you too have to offer an annuity payable at NRA. A DB plan's termination is not a means to violate 411(d)(6). Of course with a lump sum offered I can safely predict how many people will choose any form of annuity.

I took the PA-1, PA-2, C-1, C-2, C-3, EA-1(A), EA-1(B), CPA, Bar Exam, real estate license, Series 7, 63, 12 1/2, 42 hut hut exams, painted my house and walked the dog all at the same time and also passed easily, except I tripped with the pooch and skinned my knee.

Aren't post complaining about people wasting time a waste of time themselves? I think of them like the technique of back burning a forest fire. You are actually lighting a fire, which is what you are trying to put out in the first place, and sure it could help to put out the fire and prevent further damage. However, the winds could shift and the back burn could even start a bigger fire. It always seems to be windy in here.

You sound like a dork. (That of course was a joke. You are groovy!)