Blinky the 3-eyed Fish

I can't comment on legal standing, but how many instances are there where there is any room for manipulation of the 404 numbers when the 412 numbers have already been reported on the B? I can think of one and that is the decision on whether or not to fresh start the 404 bases. So without any flexibility the 404 numbers are what they are because they are based on the assumptions used to generate the 412 numbers.

I think then you could argue the minimum funding is not stated in terms of absolutes, yet if a client fails to meet that he will absolutely have to pay some excise tax. The maximum deductible is a product of the assumptions used to generate the minimum required funding. It is no less absolute. Now while you are correct that you cannot determine the maximum deductible from the Sch B, if the plan is audited, the auditor will ask for a copy of the valuation report. The maximum deductible should be on that report. So, unless the actuary is going to doctor the report, the maximum deductible will be easily determinable upon audit.

To get to the one last point of your question, the compensation to be considered is based on the 401(a)(17) limit for compensation period that begins in the calendar year. If your compensation period is the plan year, then that limit is $200,000 (of course, assuming the EGTRRA amendment increased the limit).

I can recommend an attorney in Los Angeles that I know for a fact has handled the exact same case situation. They are well known if you can overcome the distance.

I say that you look at their ring finger. If there is no ring, then you have all the evidence you need. Andy, is that the kind of authoritative opinion you were looking for?

Only a qualified plan can be a predecessor plan for this purpose, therefore is it a SIMPLE-IRA or a SIMPLE-401(k)? The former is not a qualified plan and therefore would not be a predecessor plan, but the latter is a qualified plan. Of course you also don't state how long ago the SIMPLE was maintained. If it was more than 5 years, then it definitely doesn't count as a predecessor plan. (I found a spelling error and we can't have that now.)

Although if that is your criterion, then you had to get spousal consent to roll over the money in the first place.

Well now I suppose it is. Disregard my previous answer. Although now we are within the EGTRRA remedial amendment period, which began 7/01? I am not sure of the official date. That though would extend backwards 5 years from that point.

While I don't see that as any hassle, I see now that the original post did mention that the owner is the only participant. With no vesting issues, then 1 is probably a little easier administratively. With 1 you have to prepare distribution forms. With 2 you have to prepare merger forms and track investments. Okay, I will go with 1 by a nose.

Note that the user fee exemption applies to plans described in the instructions to the 8717. One item to note is that a plan that was first effective on or after 12/9/1989 is eligibile for the user fee waiver if it meets the other requirements. 5 years is not the standard. I should add that a determination letter request is needed as described. As a side note, I have seen so many TPA's make their clients pay user fees because they don't understand the rules. I am glad you are asking questions.

2 is the best option. A 5310-A is not needed as the merger meets one of the exceptions that you will find in the instructions. BTW, this should have been done years ago.

His Effen fees are a joke!

Why would you think that?

Going on purely logic here, but what if the plan was a money purchase plan and the deceased owner had earned the right to the allocation (i.e. worked 1,000 hours or whatever)? I know of nothing that requires death to alleviate this funding requirement. I would suppose the same concept applies to whether or not a profit sharing contribution could be made.

Based on the name of the original poster, it appears that Sue wants to sue Jeff.

I don't see how you can file a schedule A when there is nothing to put on it. You might get a logical error because you are indicating it is a 412(i) plan but you aren't filing a schedule A, but I don't see a different way.

Yes, you are missing the need to see number 3 of page 9 under the header "Limited Pension Plan Reporting".

I now agree with Tom based on the proposed regs. It appears to clarify how 98-1 should be interpreted. Sorry to leave you stranded on the boat Butler.

The instructions tell it all. I don't want to make blanket statements because I don't know your 412(i) circumstances. For example, generally a Sch B is not required, but if you have a TH side fund, then it is.

I don't agree that there is an automatic pass in 2004. With eligible NHCE's in 2004, you are looking back to 2003's NHCE ADP results and counting a 0%. Now if there were no NHCE's in 2004, then I see an automatic pass. I see that either you need to use current 2004 data or no HCE deferrals are allowed in 2004.

This question came up a few days ago. See here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...=0entry102267

No, there is no such thing as safe harbor provisions for 410(b). You are thinking of 401(a)(4). Having a safe harbor formula, but basing that formula on a definition of compensation that does not satisfy 414(s), does mean that you will need to general test the plan for nondiscrimination.

What if the royalites are generated through a series of interpretive dances on a street corner?

Andy, keep your chin up. I am hugging my monitor right now pretending it is you. BTW, I am surprised you didn't get a lashing.

Your gut is right.