Mike Preston

I believe the IRS takes the position that the elections are employer-wide. Hence, if one plan has the elections and the other doesn't, following the elections made in that one plan is the way I would go, employer-wide.

Why does it matter? Final decrees can be modified by the court. So, no, there is no time limit.

Without commenting on smart phones, I have a comment on the 12c. It was alluded to in the other thread, but to be more blunt: the 12c can not do partial period amortization. Worse, it doesn't do the smart thing and give you an error. It merely produces a number that is incorrect. An actuary aware of the issue can work around it. An actuary unaware of the issue can make a boo boo. If you are unfamiliar with the underlying formulas you can't work around it, so get a business calculator (like the 17B mentioned or the good old 10B which is what I currently use) and avoid the issue entirely.

Without looking it up, my understanding is that THM is always based on 415 comp for the year in question.

I don't know where I learned this, but I now call my credit card companies in advance when leaving the country and let them know the days that we will be gone and what countries we will be in. This does two things: 1) it allows them the confidence not to cancel the card when they see transactions from my destinations and, 2) it allows them the confidence to shut down a card almost immediately when they see a transaction from another country and I have not indicated I will be there. I have a slew of cards as my wife is an unabashed rewards chaser. After we have enough miles on one card to get us where we want to go, she opens another and we start building miles there. We have cards that pay dividends and cards that further the greening of our planet, I think. I have lost track years ago and now when I get to the pump or the grocery store or.... I call her on her cell phone and ask which card I'm supposed to be using this week.

Of course you can. Keep in mind that if you select the groups to test by cherry picking, each group must satisfy 410(b) using the 70% test. But each group, once it passes 410(b), can use a different method of satisfying 401(a)(4): annual benefits, accrued to date benefits, contributions and repeat those three using permitted disparity. So, you could have 6 groups and six entirely different tests.

What negative do you see from this person becoming a planned plan participant?

Well, you don't have to increase the QPSA if the Q's are the actuarial equivalent of the normal form and the normal form isn't changed. Or am I missing something fundamental?

I don't know why the controversy ever developed. Isn't 1.401a-20, Q&A16 pretty clear?

See what happens when websites don't have timeouts on the cookies? [No, this is not a complaint, I like it fine just the way it is, thank you very much.] I had started to reply before Belgarath referenced the other thread and it took me a "while" to finish the reply. Larry, do you have a citation that goes the other way?

I have searched for a citation that a rollover into a db plan is *not* a 414(k) arrangement. I couldn't find anything. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a direct citation the other way around, but I did find a number of articles implying that it is. What do you think? Do you think a rollover into a db plan creates a 414(k) arrangement? I think it does, as long as the accounts grow with actual rate of return. And that is how most rollovers into db plans work, don't they? Assuming you agree it is a 414(k), the 401(a)(9) regs are pretty explicit that the arrangement is considered two plans for purposes of satisfying RMD's. One of those plans is treated as a defined contribution plan. I'll let you guess which one. 1.401(a)(9)-8, Q&A1

To what you addressed to BG: correct. Since a is correct and b doesn't apply, your question is moot.

To the db plan? I agree. But if you have a strange -11g for the plan year ending 12/31 I think you have the full correction period.

Many on this side of the country interpreted it to mean that a rollover is exempt.

Yes, AFAIK.

Assuming the reason they did not enter the plan was due to age/service restrictions. If they would have entered the plan had they not been in an excluded group, then even if they have not entered the plan, then yes, they show up as a zero.

Me, too, but I think the language of the regulation, when read with the language of the code section, makes it pretty clear.

Doesn't "at" imply that the doer is somebody other than "it", while "in" implies that the doer is "it"?

Your first question wasn't answered. The answer is: what does the document say? There are more options in the determination of HCE's than you have mentioned. Search the regulations for 17 and 1/2 hours, for example. It is not always possible to use an easy way to determine HCE's.

Fees.

Yes.

Was this it? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=44253&hl=

I don't think it is 4/15/10 and I don't have a cite. IIRC, the regs only state that those years are the appropriate ones to aggregate. They don't talk about accrued contributions or how long you have to take into consideration contributions made after the last day of the plan year. Hence, you want to ensure that any contributions made 1/1/10 or later are counted for 2009. Certainly if the sponsor has a calendar taxable year and goes on extension, a contribution due on the last day that the tax return was extended to would count for 2009, wouldn't it?

If they are the same plan year, you *CAN* treat them as separate. If they are not the same plan year, you *MUST* treat them as separate. BTW, I can't figure out from your original post what year ends you actually have.

Since you didn't post any portion of your amendment I presume that means you don't want help determining what reg it was supposed to be referencing. In any event, I confirm that my copy of the reg doesn't include that section, either. Maybe we are both looking at old regs?