Mike Preston

Duffer...I match your numbers in post #2, applying the limit of post #5.

See message #2.

I don't know why everybody is complaining so much about the inexpensive providers. My business is well served by work that has to be done to fix plans where just the sorts of things already described have taken place. And to all those who think that determining HCE's is an easy task I challenge them to read the regs and develop a spreadsheet for the task, especially if using the top-paid group election. I can count on one hand clients I've lost over the years to inexpensive providers.

2. The determination as to whether a participant has a break in service is independent of the determination as to whether a participant has a year of service. I disagree with your bifurcation. There is no way that the examples can logically be held to provide that a year where a plan is not maintained is, by definition, a break in service. If not so there would have been no need to include the language: "he did not have more than 500 hours...".

At the cost of three additional valuations each year ad infinitum. Seriously?

This is very much a form over substance issue, but the bottom line is that Tom's post is determinative. If you have somebody "IN" the plan who gets a "ZERO" allocation then, by definition, you don't satisfy the rules to be a reasonable classification. Hence, no ABT for the plan. Those benefiting must satisfy the ratio percentage test (70% threshold).

Yes, with the requirement to have a newly certified AFTAP of 80% or more.

Dancing angels here: the MDIB factor might be higher if spouse age differential greater than 10 years.

The presumptive burn is treated exactly as a voluntary burn effected on 4/1. Do not disregard it.

People tend to not respond when facts are confusing. It looks like you meant to say $390 not $340. Assuming you meant $390 your inquiry makes sense, although I disagree with your premise that "a 1099 will be issued" because since this correction takes place all within a single calendar/plan year I don't see where a 1099 is called for.

Cite? EPCRS? Just got back from vacay so it may take me a while to find a cite, especially in light of comments that the government speakers made at ASPPA Annual which essentially said: an EPCRS QNEC is treated as a regular QNEC for all purposes. If so, then they are excluded from testing because of the rule that a4 testing must pass before and after. So the cite won't be in EPCRS it will be in a4.

Nobody has said so explicitly, so allow me: QNEC's attributable to missed deferrals are excluded from a4 testing. If they are excluded from a4 testing then the comment about passing testing both before and after is irrelevant.

What I find most interesting about the September rates announcement is that they simultaneously revised downward both the July and August rates meaning that it was (barely) possible to have accurately predicted a September rate that would have barely registered an increase but there would have been no increase! Makes advance hand wringing even less productive.

Yes.

Show the numbers on the worksheet if you want help. Without seeing them it is impossible to explain for certain. But my guess is that your self-employment income reduced by higher priority "reductions" leaves you with a number that doesn't support the $18,000 salary deferral limit. Tax return due on Monday, huh?

Somebody has waaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much time on their hands.... I would have thought this was a post meant for 169 days from now.

Here is a cite that may help clarify: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-Loans#6 Note the part where it says: "Because the law bases Jim’s maximum loan on all of his loans during the 12 months prior to the new loan, there isn’t a significant advantage for Jim to pay off his first loan before requesting a second." Here's a calculator you might find helpful: http://wix-dropbox.elasticbeanstalk.com/link-to-file?instance=LQ4VqWbzSBsC04fG-BMtBOGrPWAycXcQhGfxhqdXuQ8.eyJpbnN0YW5jZUlkIjoiMTM0ODg1NDgtZWIzZS01NDlmLTk2OGItZDY1ZWNkZjJmYzUzIiwic2lnbkRhdGUiOiIyMDE2LTEwLTExVDE3OjE0OjE4LjM3M1oiLCJ1aWQiOm51bGwsImlwQW5kUG9ydCI6IjcwLjIxNC40NS4yMTcvMzM4MzciLCJ2ZW5kb3JQcm9kdWN0SWQiOm51bGwsImRlbW9Nb2RlIjpmYWxzZSwiYWlkIjoiOGY0OWRjMzUtMTg3MC00MGQwLTgxOGEtYjlhOTMxZDFlNTEwIiwiYmlUb2tlbiI6ImY2M2YzNmNlLWRjYmUtMTQxYy0zODY4LWNiYWYyNGJiY2M5YiIsInNpdGVPd25lcklkIjoiZmEzY2E1M2YtNzVlMy00ZDI5LWE0YmYtOWQwM2RlMTU5OWYyIn0&compId=TPWdgt1-mgz&path=%2FDropbox+folder+App%2FLoan+Maximum+Calculator.xls

Ohio has many legal aid societies. Contact one of them. They may be able to help.

On review, it looks like the successor plan rules do, in fact, affix to the terminated plan, not the successor plan. It still wouldn't surprise me to have to explain all of this to an IRS auditor gunning for the successor plan.

Doesn't 404(a)(6) apply? If so, then a contribution made early this year that is deducted last year has to be applied to the prior year's MRC. If so, it has to be on the prior year's SB. If that requires an amended return, so be it.

Do you really want to be arguing that point with an IRS auditor? It would seem to me that if the terminated plan were to stop filing 5500's it is implicitly stating that the distributions (of zero dollars) were in fact made. If faced with retroactive analysis, though, I would argue the opposite.

We have different definitions of "nothing".

Terminating and starting a new 401(k) is precluded by the successor plan rules.

Doesn't 1.404(e)(14) address this?

Interesting. Sounds like precisely what the contingent benefits rule intended to avoid. I would say a regular VCP submission with a suggestion to top-up, retroactively, the stock awards such that they end up being agnostic with respect to deferrals. Might be expensive.