Belgarath

Northern New England. At least it is never dull, and we don't get the awful hurricanes and tornado weather that many other parts of the country get, so we really aren't so badly off. Plus, it gives us a form of entertainment - griping about the weather. Hard to do that if you live in San Diego.

Heckuva way to start a Monday morning. Oh well, supposed to be in the 60's tomorrow, so it'll be gone in a day or two. I never take my snow tires off until May anyway, so just an irritation rather than a real problem. Now I just need some cheese to go with this whine.

Never saw the movie, but if it is as bad as the joke, I made a good choice!!

Well, that's a good point. The Code does say "any" plan covering employees of such person or any other member of such group... I was going to get Thai food for supper, but perhaps I'll try a little crow instead.

The latter.

Yuck...

Wow, that's a massive penalty structure. A very powerful incentive to be careful! Have you had anyone since, to whom you related this situation, who still ignores your advice on this? (Just curious - is the Mass penalty 300% of the Federal penalty, or 300% of the otherwise applicable State level penalty?)

Cuse - yes, "paired" with a SEP. It isn't a situation where the SEP contribution has anything whatsoever to do with 403(b) eligibility, deferrals, etc., etc. - it just exists completely independently.

How often do you see this combination - a non-ERISA deferral only 403(b), so no 5500's, and a non-IRS "prototype" SEP for the employer contributions, so no 5500's? Just curious.

Agree with CuseFan, but be careful if it is a community property state. The spousal noninvolvement exception might not apply. I know that not everybody agrees on this issue, so they may wish to seek legal counsel if applicable.

Ok - very informative. Like you, I've never seen this. Good to know. Gracias.

Interesting - so extending this, suppose it is a Roth contribution, and it sits in the plan earning interest until distributed 30 years later at age 65 when the participant retires. (For purposes of this discussion, I'm assuming no in-service withdrawals allowed.) Presumably this is then not a "qualified" Roth distribution even though more than 5 years/59-1/2 is satisfied, and the full amount INCLUDING earnings is taxable.

Thanks John - this is VERY helpful!

Hi Kevin - thanks. Yeah, that makes sense. I just don't see much in the way of "special" language specific to a multiemployer plan that's actually necessary in a fairly standard situation such as what I was asked about. If they ultimately ask us to do anything with this plan, I'd probably go ahead and do a draft and then run it by an ERISA attorney. It's likely, however, that we'll end up with no involvement in this particular situation.

Sadly, my abilities do not extend to crashing the IRS website. If they did, I'd be wealthy beyond dreams...

So for a "normal" 401(k) multiemployer plan, is there really much in the way of any required "special" language? I assume there isn't any of that withdrawal liability stuff that pertains to multiemployer DB plans, etc. - actually seems like the document would mostly be fairly standard language. Obviously it needs to refer to the collective bargaining agreement for certain provisions, but that isn't anything startling. Thanks for any input.

Yesterday... Income tax was due, I had to pay... All the funds I tried to hide away... I don't believe, I'll eat 'till May. Suddenly... I'm not sure that I am fiscally... Ready for responsibility... Oh yesterday, came suddenly. Why, I Owed so much, I don't know, I couldn't say May be Forms were wrong, how I long, for yesterday. Yesterday... Seemed like prison time was on its way... Now I need a place to hide away... While keeping IRS at bay. Why, I Owed so much, I don't know, I couldn't say May be Forms were wrong, how I long, for yesterday. Yesterday... Taxes due, I filed come what may... Losing all deductions that's my way... Of giving IRS my pay. mm - mm - mm - mm - mm - mm - mm.

I know that Larry knows this, but for some folks out there who don't know the details, be careful on this. If there are ROTH deferrals, since they are after-tax, they already show up in Box 1. Too many times I have seen people who were taught to "add back in the deferrals" to Box 1, and consequently overstate the Plan compensation.

What I SHOULD start it with is, "Give me your wallet."

IMHO, that's sort of unanswerable. Entirely dependent upon facts and circumstances. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your question. If it is a "plan design" meeting purely for purposes of getting an illustration(s), then I wouldn't necessarily worry about distribution options, rollovers, bonding, whatever...

Thanks all. This confirms my thinking - the logical process just wasn't crystalizing well that morning. One of those days when you question what you know (or think you know)... It is a big help to have these boards to have people either agree, or inform you that you are crazy, and more importantly, to explain WHY you are or are not crazy. Is tax season ever going to end??? I'm ready for a break!!!

Right, so they get 3% SH, but no gateway. That's what I was thinking, but this is a confusing subject...

Brain cramp - PS has 1 YOS/1,000 eligibility. SH nonelective is provided to anyone eligible to defer, which is everyone. If someone has never worked 1,000 hours, does the fact that they receive 3% nonelective require that they receive gateway? I'm saying no, but second-guessing myself... P.S. - my thinking for "no" is that they can be disaggregated as statutorily excludable.

Update - Received a document. It appears to be Volume Submitter language with VERY minor modifications - I just did a 5 minute skim, and don't see anything referring to "multiemployer" status, etc. Again, this is a 401(k) plan, with a bunch of small employers in the same industry who employ members of the YYYY union in their shops. Here's how "Employer" is defined: Employer shall mean the XXXX Insurance Trust and any Employer who is required to contribute to the Plan pursuant to the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and who has agreed to the terms and conditions of the Plan and Trust. The term "Employer" as used herein shall also mean the Union with respect to its Employees for whom the required contribution is made pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee. If, under state law, an Employer at any time is not governed by directors but instead by its stockholders, or if the Employer is an unincorporated business and is governed by its owners, reference herein to the Board of Directors shall be deemed to refer to the individual(s) empowered to vote on the Employer's affairs. I'm still not sure if this is truly a multiemployer plan, or a multiple employer plan, although it seems more like the latter... Still don't have any resolutions, amendments, addendums, determination/advisory/opinion letters., etc., etc....

Mike - as sure as I can be without actually seeing a document. It was explained to me that it is a multiemployer plan, it is for a bunch of union employers (small employers but several of them) and the 5500 says it is a multiemployer plan. But I don't actually KNOW...