Mike Preston

Neither, unless by "value of the death benefit" you mean fair market value of the policy. If so, Yes, No, No.

Needs more to provide a complete answer. Lots more to think about. Many more nuances. Repost after 10/15 if you want more.

Respectfully? I think auditor is confusing 5500SF restrictions and requirements with those for the EZ.

Good to know!

You sure?

No, but what does the document say?

Good luck with yours. Mine are still ongoing.

Uh. Look up?

Definitely because he's prettier.

Larry's got my vote.

Unless stealing from your business is for some reason a federal offense the mutt the likelihood is that it is a state crime. You therefore need ask an attorney in your state familiar with embezzlement. Whatever you do, don't do it without an attorney because if you try to handle it informally I've been told you can be charged yourself for interfering. What is most likely to happen is that the entertain you engage will coordinate with the prosecutor. Good luck.

Right. I'd not deposit anything today. Instead, I'd wait for tomorrow, at the earliest.

NOT covered?

9 15 s/b 9 17.

Keep in mind that the consequences are severe if the irs thinks you included somebody you should not have.

Even if one of the keys is a nhce?

Sounds like the plan is orphaned. Have you looked at the orphaned plan issue? Assuming the owner wants to put his/her head in the sand with respect to it being an orphaned plan, the answer to your question rests with the owner. If they treat the new plan as a related plan then it can't be a rollover, it has to be a transfer.

You amend out the floor if you amend out the offset. No can do. Unless you're talking about eliminating the offset in entirely. In that case you give big benefit increases and you're fine.

Close. The phrase "everyone's ABP is 10%" is unlikely to be true because ABP calculations always include deferrals. But O agree it is still likely to satisfy the ABPT.

No can do. If they want to do that they must terminate the plan.

If gateway is a big issue then comp from entry date can save a lot of dough.

As long as the plan documents specify eligibility that runs in favor of FL and CA in plan 1 and just CA in plan 2 I can't imagine the circumstances that would preclude use of ABT. And in the absence of another plan won't you have a coverage percentage of 100% if the plans are aggregated for coverage? I must be missing something.

Yes.

A reasonable classification must be enumerated in the document.

My answer wouldn't change it still has the same requirements. Does your example meet my definitions? No it doesn't.