Mike Preston

Congrats! They need to bring back NPH as host. Josh and Sara are just too bland. Either that, or DeNiro should host. That would generate some buzz.

Yes, but I thought with your Relius connections you can burrow beneath the tease and see what they said in the presentation being teased.

I don't think "satisfying a child support obligation" definitively points one way or the other. It could be tax efficient to do it this way.

No. In the case of a child AP the taxes remain the obligation of the participant.

http://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/Workshop 01.Pension Deductions - Not for the Faint of Heart.pdf See pages 47 and 48 I also saw a Relius tease for a workshop that supposedly addressed the following: "In which tax year are the contributions made with respect to a retroactive corrective amendment deductible?" which may be instructional: http://www.relius.net/news/TechnicalUpdateDetails.aspx?T=&1=1&ID=971

I know you don't **have** to provide the 402(f) Notice but it is still good practice to give them something. I haven't revisited the issue in a long time but about 10 years ago we ended up with an "under $200" instruction form that is only one page: INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTICIPANT FOR LUMP SUM DISTRIBUTION - $200 OR LESS You are entitled to a distribution from the _______________________ Plan. Attached is a check that represents your full benefit. 60 Day Rollover Option: .... Additional 10% Tax If You Are under Age 59-1/2. .... General Rules for Alternate Payees..... General Rules for Beneficiaries....

The plan sponsor is doing the right thing.

404(a)(6) has always been interpreted literally as to the terms of the plan. To the extent there have been carve outs to that definition they have been explicit (hence 412(c)(8) you previously cited. There is no such nexus between 404(a)(6) and an -11(g) amendment that I'm aware of. I guess we are just going to have to disagree that the language of 404(a)(6) you are hanging your hat on ["unless otherwise provided for in rules applicable to those sections."] has any applicability to -11(g). It doesn't.

Assuming we adopt the view that I've already described as over-aggressive, how do you get around 404(a)(6)?

Nobody has discussed making the design changes described in the -11(g) amendment permanent or not. I would resist any further expansion of -1(c)(2) in the absence of, at the least, an informal announcement from the IRS. Where do you draw the line, Tom? Couldn't you use that same provision to diminish the effectiveness of ANY design that is on the wrong side of a pro-rata allocation formula? I would argue that there are certain things that are very much intended to be measured by the mathematical formulas of the regulation. And treating a contribution to an historically walled off class of employees (those who terminate before the end of the year) as subject to those formulas is one.

I'm glad the system is working. It has no doubt helped that you are so detail oriented.

But while we are discussing angels, dancing and pins there is an (overly aggressive, in my view) interpretation of the above that will typically satisfy both definitions. While the -11(g) amendment can't be used to modify the otherwise determined deductible limit of 404, the contributions made pursuant to the -11(g) amendment can be deducted as long as they don't cause an aggregate deduction to exceed that otherwise determined deductible limit of 404. That leaves your only hurdle as 404(a)(6). Got any workarounds for 404(a)(6)?

QNEC provisions are baked into the document before the last day of the fiscal year so they are not in any way comparable to corrective allocations pursuant to an -11(g) amendment. Why do you need a citation that says the obvious? Or if a flip answer doesn't warm the cockles of your heart, try 1.401(a)(4)-11(g)(5): (5)Effect under other statutory requirements. A corrective amendment under this paragraph (g) is treated as if it were adopted and effective as of the first day of the plan year only for the specific purposes described in this paragraph (g). Thus, for example, the corrective amendment is taken into account not only for purposes of sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b), but also for purposes of determining whether the plan satisfies sections 401(l). By contrast, the amendment is not given retroactive effect for purposes of section 404 (deductions for employer contributions) or section 412 (minimum funding standards), unless otherwise provided for in rules applicable to those sections.

Yes.

Because it isn't. You think wrong.

Does 1 HCE and 3 NHCE's constitute a 410(b) group?

Don't forget top-heavy implications.

It is too early for me to crawl this deep into the weeds. At first blush it seems directly on point with respect to the OP. Key on the word "available".

It does not.

Yup.

Search for "(ix)De minimis change in the timing of an optional form of benefit." The cite might be Q&A-2. That is 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(b)(2)(ix) rather than 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1(b)(2)(ix).

I know we are both preaching from the same pulpit. Maybe I've just recently been burned by actual numbers when any reasonable interpretation of the description would be harmless. Bottom line for me is: pretend I'm from Missouri.

If the effect of the amendment, standing on its own, divorced from the provisions of the plan before the amendment, results in a single HCE getting something and no similar NHCE's then it wouldn't satisfy 410(b).

You need to brush up your imagination skills. How about only 1 hce?

I don't do cryptically. Or do I?