Jump to content

Mike Preston

Silent Keyboards
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,547

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    153

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums (Message Boards)

Everything posted by Mike Preston

  1. Mike Preston
    Good grief there's a lot of fiction in the above. If you have everybody in their own group and none of them get 0% you are not in any way precluded from use of the average benefits test.
  2. Mike Preston
    See Larry Starr's pdf on this issue posted by Dan. Search.
  3. Mike Preston
    "Probably"? ?
  4. Mike Preston
    Hi, Lois. Seems things are OK. Thx.
  5. Mike Preston
    Dave, has there been a change recently? The link I have used to access unread messages now returns a very difficult to read screen.
  6. Mike Preston
    It makes sense but I think it's wrong. An increase in benefits in year X gives rise to an increased rmd in year x + 1.
  7. Mike Preston
    See Tom's response.
  8. Mike Preston
    Wacky memory it is. Unless it rises to a an exclusive benefit violation and this isn't even close.
  9. Mike Preston
    For some reason the OP is admitting to an excess allocation where none took place. If you don't have an error you can't invoke EPCRS, so that whole line of reasoning is ..... wacky.
  10. Mike Preston
    Unless your document is wacky you are correct.
  11. Mike Preston
    I'm sure the qdro directs the participant to execute the documents necessary to implement the dro. An election to withhold 5% as a precursor is no different. If the participant doesn't elect 5% or less withholding the participant is not doing as directed. The judge won't like it!
  12. Mike Preston
    It would unless there's something you didn't tell us!
  13. Mike Preston
    The concept is called permissive aggregation.
  14. Mike Preston
    I read the Q&A and I don't see where it says the year preceding the RBD year is not a DCY. What am I missing?
  15. Mike Preston
    You have to follow the plan Docs. If the MEP provides for separate testing then by golly you have separate testing. Somebody has to make sure the original plan doesn't conflict. Happy reconciling!
  16. Mike Preston
    You are correct. I was assuming the union employee would be an NHCE.
  17. Mike Preston
    Well, they should be, but oldman says they aren't.
  18. Mike Preston
    My numbers match Tom, too. But not yours. The relevant increase is, as Tom points out, Aug and Sep over Jul, not Aug over Aug or Sep over Sep. In any event I can see, but just barely, an increase which ups the key employee threshold, but not anything else. Time will tell.
  19. Mike Preston
    Based on the numbers posted today, Tom's projections are still bankable. If inflation is about 5% per annum for the next two months there is a chance that the Key employee threshold will get to the next level ($185,000). Everything else seems locked in, but time will tell.
  20. Mike Preston
    Yes.
  21. Mike Preston
    So are those who work less than 500, optionally but the option is all or none.
  22. Mike Preston
    The plan. As to the rest, it is so wrong that all I can do is smh.
  23. Mike Preston
    What part of 0.5 times zero implies differently?
  24. Mike Preston
    3.6%?
  25. Mike Preston
    Got a link?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use

  I accept