Belgarath

I fear you are correct. I'm assuming that he had already satisfied initial eligibility requirements.

I have nothing whatsoever to do with this stuff, so fortunately don't even have to read them. But I know some of you have been eagerly awaiting this... http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/reg15808004.pdf P.S. - here's the "cover page." http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js2956.htm

Here's the only specific reference to a scriveners error that I was able to find quickly. A less than definitive response from the IRS. I realize yours is a different situation entirely... but the "one way or another" is less than inspiring. IRS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PRESENTED AT ASPA's 2002 ANNUAL PENSION ACTUARIES AND CONSULTANTS CONFERENCE 40. Assume a profit sharing plan with a one-year of service eligibility and 2/20 graded vesting. The TDR restatement of the plan in 1986 (for which there is a favorable determination letter) reflects 2/20 vesting in the adoption agreement, the SPD, and plan administration. Everything was fine until it is discovered in 2001 that the TRA '86 restatement (signed in 1992, and has a favorable determination letter on top of the 1986 letter) erroneously has the 100% vesting box checked on the adoption agreement instead of the 2/20 box. The SPD and the plan administration continue to show and apply the 2/20 vesting schedule. Will the Service approve a scrivener's error amendment to correct the vesting schedule election on the TRA '86 adoption agreement to the one that has been used for the last 18 years of plan operation or must we retroactively fully vest everyone in the plan during the TRA '86 restatement? IRS response: Fact and circumstances will determine the results, but the employer's only legitimate choice is to come in to the Service through VCP in order to resolve this one way or the other.

Blinky - no, actually I wasn't thinking about the fact that there's only one formula. So now I'm going to have to consider this at greater length. My answer doesn't make much sense when the contribution isn't a specific % of pay. I guess my answer would then be: tough luck for those who didn't receive an allocation. Maybe the employer can make it up to them with a bonus, and just amend the plan so they participate in year 2. I may well be overly paranoid. But I wonder what would happen if your approach was used, and a participant whose benefit was reduced complained to the DOL? I haven't generally found the DOL to be overly reasonable or tolerant, and they have a nasty habit of elevating "form over function" to an art form. What thinkest thou? Your approach may well be such a low risk that it isn't worth worrying about.

I prefer mbozek's solution. I'm very squeamish about a retroactive amendment that reduces the allocation otherwise received by those participants eligible for it under the terms of the current document.

I'm not sure if you meant to say that the employer files a 5558 for the 5500 forms, when you really meant to say for the 5330? If you filed a 5558 for the 5500 forms, then no, there is no extension on the otherwise applicable due date for the 5330. The two are independent. If you file a 5558 requesting an extension of the 5330 deadline, then yes, you could receive an extension of up to 6 months after the normal filing deadline for the 5330. Note that this extension is only for filing the 5330 form - it doesn't extend the deadline for actually paying the tax due.

When in doubt on these issues, I generally prefer a conservative interpretation of the regulatory language. Since it only specifies the RMD from IRA's, then I'd interpret it to mean that RMD's from other plans must be included in the AGI. Does this make sense? Not to me. That's just how I read it.

I dunno. Rico Petrocelli made 28 errors in only 127 games in 1966. Hard to figure out Renteria. I think his two years prior to Boston he only had something like 27 errors for the two years COMBINED. Of course, there are errors and there are errors. I used to see Ozzie Smith make some (but not many!) errors on balls that no other shortstop in baseball could ever have gotten to in the first place. I wonder how the relative value regulations should be applied to baseball players...

Technically, I think yes. 2005-70 limits the amount of the hardship withdrawal to amounts that would otherwise be available for hardship withdrawal. However, I do wonder if this would ever be enforced - I mean, if the plan were ever audited, and this was even picked up, would the IRS really stick a plan on this? I'd like to think not, but I obviously have no way of knowing. Also possible that additional legislative or regulatory relief will follow and hopefully make the question moot.

What does Fidelity do if you refuse? And I'll admit to being woefully uninformed when it comes to the world of mutual fund investing, but it seems like any tracking of excess trading or market timing should be done by Fidelity, not by a TPA. How would you even know?

And I'm just being insatiably curious - (see nosy) - I wonder what the reason is for there being such a provision in a QDRO to start with? There must be a reason, but I can't think of one. If you ever find out, I'd love to hear what it is.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for? http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx...26cfr1b_05.html You can similarly access the IRC on line for 72(p) itself. Again, I'm not completely certain of precisely what you are looking for. Hope this helps.

Lori - I believe he wore a Yankees jersey in Fenway. DB - just out of curiosity - I've never happened to see that language. Although I also admit I might not have noticed if I wasn't looking for it. Is this present in Corbel, Datair, etc. - some of the big providers?

I agree with Blinky. And, I think 1.401(a)(4)-1©(8) would cover this being discriminatory in that the earnings are being allocated in a discriminatory fashion. That is, the HC enjoys earnings on a contribution deposited early, whereas the NHC do not.

Mr. Holland may well not like 412(i) plans. I don't like them either, although I don't raise my dislike to the vitriolic level that many folks do. Nevertheless, there's a big difference between not liking them, and inventing a reason why they can't be a safe harbor by unofficially contradicting established statutory or regulatory authority. Can someone explain to me how Mr. Holland derives his theory, based upon the following? 411(b)(1)(F) CERTAIN INSURED DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS. --Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A), (B), and ©, a defined benefit plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph if such plan -- 411(b)(1)(F)(i) is funded exclusively by the purchase of insurance contracts, and 411(b)(1)(F)(ii) satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 412(i) (relating to certain insurance contract plans), but only if an employee's accrued benefit as of any applicable date is not less than the cash surrender value his insurance contracts would have on such applicable date if the requirements of paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of section 412(i) were satisfied. 412(i) CERTAIN INSURANCE CONTRACT PLANS. -- A plan is described in this subsection if -- 412(i)(1) the plan is funded exclusively by the purchase of individual insurance contracts, 412(i)(2) such contracts provide for level annual premium payments to be paid extending not later than the retirement age for each individual participating in the plan, and commencing with the date the individual became a participant in the plan (or, in the case of an increase in benefits, commencing at the time such increase becomes effective), 412(i)(3) benefits provided by the plan are equal to the benefits provided under each contract at normal retirement age under the plan and are guaranteed by an insurance carrier (licensed under the laws of a State to do business with the plan) to the extent premiums have been paid, 412(i)(4) premiums payable for the plan year, and all prior plan years, under such contracts have been paid before lapse or there is reinstatement of the policy, 412(i)(5) no rights under such contracts have been subject to a security interest at any time during the plan year, and 412(i)(6) no policy loans are outstanding at any time during the plan year. Now, I frankly see no way that there could be a cash surrender value of zero. I've never seen, nor heard of an annuity that has a zero CSV if the required premium is paid - hard to believe a state banking and insurance department would approve such a policy. But even if they did, I respectfully submit that Mr. Holland is dead wrong. If the IRS wants to rewrite the regulations, that's fine, but his comments from the podium on this issue (again, if that's what he said - I wasn't there!) are off-base.

I'd be interested in Mr. Holland's arguments for this, if that's really exactly what he said. I'd refer him to 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(5).

I agree - I've never seen a buy/sell within the actual document language. I've also only ever seen one PS plan that used plan assets to purchase the insurance to fund the outside buy/sell. Seemed rather complex to me at the time, but in retrospect it really wasn't...

You might try Penchecks. I believe they do this type of stuff. I'm sure there are others as well..I suspect a web search will give you quite a few.

"Travels with Charley" by John Steinbeck. "The Federalist Papers."

I'm not an actuary, but I think it's a fantastic idea. I'm just not sure what it would look like once the lawyers get done with all the caveats and conditions. (And I'm not saying that to put down the lawyers - their job in this case is to cover our backsides, so some healthy paranoia is probably a good thing!) Does the DOL have any sort of model paragraph that has their blessing?

I have trouble operating an abacus, so I'd have to ask one of my kids...

"Proposed regs are not enforceable under the tax law and cannot be use against a taxpayer because they are not law until adopted as final regs under the APA, 60 days after publication in the federal register. While the IRS can issue rulings based on proposed regs to taxpayers it cannot apply prposed regs to enforce the tax law." This is good! Now here's my followup question: Let's say the proposed regs say that as of (X) date - let's say 90 days after the proposed regs are issued - that plan sponsors can no longer double park their cars in IRS parking slots. Can the final regs that are issued 2 years later be made retroactive (and enforceable) to the originally proposed date, or can they only be applied and enforceable starting 60 days after the date of publication in the federal register?

I got 8 out of 10 correct. I'm not an actuary, so I'd say that that equals about 95% correct. But it said I was playing as a guest so it didn't save my score, so I don't think it helps. Tom, the anwer I was looking for that didn't appear was WAY too many.

An interesting conundrum. The guidance is all concerned with what is the LATEST date that this can be, but is less helpful when it is earlier! I wasn't able to come up with a solid answer based upon the regulations. 1.411(a)-7(b) says that participation is based upon the first day of the plan year in which the employee first becomes a participant in the plan. Does the plan define participation as the entry date, which would be 1-1-2006? If so, then I'd feel comfortable using this as NRD. It has the added advantage of being the common sense answer, as I agree it does seem odd to have an NRA or NRD prior to plan entry.

Well, I don't know the Corbel document. But I think you could have a life insurance policy that had been around for a lot of years where the cash value was pretty much equal to (or at least somewhere near) the death benefit - so under the death benefit option that flosfur quotes, it could be zero. Or at least very darned small. Maybe one of the life insurance experts could chime in as to whether such a scenario is possible.