Mike Preston

Ouch. I am now officially "in need" of caffeine because of my thirst for tea. You DO NOT want to be around me if I've gone 24 hours without my Brisk ... or something like that.

You've come to the right place. Search on "minor" and you will find oodles of messages that go over the ground you are traveling. I particularly liked this message and the thread it is in: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...st&p=156350

Having a bad year, are we?

Works for me. In the unlikely event that the salesperson category is not a reasonable business class for purposes of eligibility testing, you might not have the average benefits test available to you. But if the plan otherwise passes the ratio percentage test, it should sail through.

You most certainly can aggregate plans and you can use the ABT when doing so, if it suits you. But I still don't understand how it helps you in this situation. Keep in mind that "plans" can only be aggregated for coverage purposes (not for ABT purposes) when they are of a similar "type". For this purpose, "type" means a plan that is not required to be disaggregated. You must disaggregate k plans from m plans from esops from "all other" plans. In your case, your k and your m are mandatorily (sp?) disaggregated with the prevailing wage plan (unless the prevailing wage plan is a 401(k) plan and the monies being deposited are being deposited as QNECs (a design I'm familiar with and works quite well, by the way).

Tom, have you changed your name?

By definition, if they are covered under a prevailing wage plan, then they are definitively not covered by a collective bargaining agreement. I still don't understand how the ABT helps you here. If you end up covering 0% of your NHCE's and 100% of your HCE's it seems a bit difficult to satisfy any test.

What does the SPD say?

Looks right. Annual benefits are a bit unusual, though.

Unless you are running the ABT on a special basis whereby the DB and the DC are completely separate, you MUST include the deferrals.

What the cute dog said.

{1} Yes {2} Don't know what the "Overall Ratio Test" is. With 15/17 being NHCE concentration percentage, the mid-point of the safe and unsafe harbors would be a bit less than 25%. Is that what you mean?

What would you like them so say?

Me, neither.

He misunderstood. There is no such rule.

I think you are off by a year, yes? Anything signed in 2006, whether 1/1/2006 or 12/31/2006 is an amendment that is made within two years immediately before the 2008 year and therefore can not be taken into account for 2008, but can for 2009. It is the pesky amendment adopted 3/15/2007, effective 1/1/2006, which can't be taken into account until 1/1/2010 that bothers some people. I'm not saying I like the way the IRS has interpreted the statute, but I find no reason to bounce their interpretation as being unreasonable.

You have it right.

Or even a 12/31/08 valuation.

Technically, since he has satisfied the criteria for receiving an allocation, no. However, if you were willing to engage ERISA counsel to determine if the following is worth trying, then what about establishing a new group that has everybody in it other than that doctor and write the amendment such that the new group's allocation is not to be less than the previously existing group's allocation? Then submit for a letter (which probably won't be ruled upon because it is off-cycle, at least until it is too late).

Tom, great catch. Think: it sounds like that portion of the regulation that Tom cited makes it mandatory that your plan allow both your 10% election PLUS an election to utilize the catch-up limit for the year. I don't have time to look up the regulation at the moment, but if what Tom cites is all that there is on the subject, then it looks like you should be able to gently convince the plan to allow you to defer your 10% plus the catch-up limitation for the year. However, with that said, there are circumstances where there might be exceptions and your plan might fit into one of them. For example, your plan's Administrator might have an opinion from their lawyer saying that the provision Tom cited doesn't apply for some arcane reason that I can't fathom at the moment. Hence, while I suggest you approach them with a request, don't take what is said here as complete research on the issue, because without being familiar with the plan itself, and its history, no one can be sure about what is required and what isn't required. Good luck and let us know what happens when you run this up the flag pole.

Your conclusions are correct if your theory about how the plan operates is correct. Focus on the 10%. That is a plan imposed limit. If payroll will allow you to defer more than the plan imposed limit of 10% then all deferrals in excess of that 10% limit become catch-ups. Some plans allow an election of both deferrals (10%) and then, if one elects the maximum, an additional amount not to exceed the catch-up limitation for the year. But if the plan doesn't allow it, you can't force them to take it.

Paul, yes, yes, no. I think.

Janet, keep in mind that the 404a7 restriction goes away in 2008 only for DB plans covered by PBGC.

Yes, it is totally wrong.

Kind of a strange question. DB plans don't use the tables at all, unless they are in the process of paying out the participant's complete benefit via a lump sum. Care to elaborate?