Mike Preston

Adopted by "1099-employee"'s employer? So, it is a MEP.

What is this thing called "Guidelines" you talk about?

Seems wrong to me. How would you fill out the 1099 if it was issued by the provider? Do that on all distribution amounts/withheld amounts.

He isn't. Give it back, all of it, it is a mistake in fact.

Yes. Yes. Make sure you file them all at once to avoid having to pay more than $1, 500.

Welcome to our world. You can't go wrong by signing everything solely as plan administrator.

There is so much wrong in this text. Benefits, rights and features are also tested under 401a4. There is no requirement to include any specific nhces in the testing. Unless you're talking about including people as not benefiting in the fractions.

I agree he is not excludable. The Hallmark of elapsed time is that keeping track of actual hours is irrelevant. So the information in the original post indicating he never works 500 hours is irrelevant.

There is some disagreement as to whether 100% vesting is required. Certainly something greater than 0.

Just to round out the edges you might want to confirm that there are no prior forms due.

I don't disagree. Every practitioner needs to decide how timid or aggressive they want to be in these circumstances.

They can in fact do much more than squat. And there's a difference between running the test using compensation while a participant and running a test which passes based on compensation for the year.

Apples and oranges. We were talking about being brought in via an amendment. Now you are bringing one person in through plan document provisions already in effect.

Could you post a link to the prior discussion? And you are wrong. All five are treated identically

404o isn't effective retroactively. Read 11g to confirm.

Because the IRS says so? It is what it is.

While moot to the original poster, a cash balance plan will generate a normal accrual rate in the same manner as a defined contribution plan will generate an ebar. The same rules on testing compensation apply.

I would be very careful about using short service employees to generate testing results which are otherwise unavailable. The IRS doesn't like it. I think the prudent course of action would be to use full year compensation.

I think you can do this with an 11g amendment. Most likely anyway. Note that the deduction will be deferred for one year.

As expected, it does not say on or before.

Even for partners who may not know their numbers until well after 1/30?

Sorry about the typo (As versus Is). Seriously, though, I have never seen a document address the issue one way or the other.

Is nicely as possible, tell them to go fly a kite.

What are the numbers?

Uh, and not top heavy?