Mike Preston

LOL. I interpreted George's statement as "if it were a defined benefit plan....", not "death benefit". I agree that death benefit is not an asset until, at least, death. Maybe not even until paid, although I think I'd carry it as a receivable upon death, rather than wait until it is paid to reflect it in assets.

DB would most assuredly be a Plan Asset at its fair market value!!!!! See RP on this issue. Think it is 2005-20. Maybe.

No. It means that the ER contributions for the ineligible employee is treated as having received compensation and then made a voluntary IRA contribution. If the amount isn't within the personal IRA limits for that employee it is treated as any IRA contribution in excess of the limits.

Usually compensation is included only to the extent it comes from prevailing wage jobs, but eligibility isn't. Are you sure?

Yes.

ETA has it right.

Let's be more specific, Tom. Run 1 test with HCE5 and nHCE1 set to zero. Cross-test that plan. It should pass. That plan satisfies coverage at (2/3) / (4/6) = 100%. Run a second test with everybody other than HCE5 and nHCE1 set to zero. Test that plan on the basis of contributions. It should pass. That plan satisfies coverage at (1/3) / (1/6) = 200%. I'm not saying that the plan will definitely pass using the above technique because in the absence of seeing the data there is just no way to be sure.

If you are concerned about him taking action which will disenfranchise your mother, you need to have her let the plans know of an impending QDRO as soon as possible. A joinder will certainly do that, but so will a letter from your mom directly to the PA. You have to weigh the value of letting the PA know about the impending QDRO against your concerns that your father may try to make things more difficult if he is notified. Personally, I'd have her call both PA's immediately and ask how she can send a letter to the PA. I'd draft a letter for my mom immediately and have her sign it and immediately deliver it as per the instruction. Get confirmation of receipt, if possible, by sending certified-return receipt or an overnight delivery service and require signature acceptance. I'd then get a copy of the QDRO procedures and, if necessary, send that letter to wherever the QDRO procedures says letters should be sent (it never hurts to have sent two letters). Then make sure to follow the procedures. Worst case scenario if he hasn't taken a full distribution of all of his benefits (unlikely) is he gets a lawyer that thinks she is entitled to absolutely nothing. If it were me, I'd start with a google search for QDRO's and call a few of them. I think what you are looking for is a firm that specializes in low cost QDRO's (that is, they do a LOT of them) and they are either run by or have a very close working relationship with an ERISA attorney. Or vice versa, looking for an attorney that specializes in ERISA family law who does a LOT of QDRO's or has a working relationship (or ownership interest) in a firm that does QDRO's.

Yes, that test says it fails. I thought you said you had a report that didn't indicate whether the test passed or failed? I didn't ask for the test, I asked for the data. If you don't know the difference, somebody else should be asking for you. DATA Date of Birth Date of Participation Current year salary Current year allocation amounts (broken down by source: discretionary ER contributions, deferrals, QNEC's, safe-harbor, safe-harbor-match, etc.) If you want to do a thorough job (people rarely do), the data necessary to do an accrued-to-date analysis: End of year account balances by source (i.e,. 12/31/2014 account balances, inclusive of 2014 contributions) Number of years where participant received ER allocations (usually all years of participation) As much compensation history as you can get (at least 3 years)

Tough one. From the sound of things, this isn't going to be easy for your mother. The best case scenario for her is that your father agrees to let her control the process, so she is in charge of: 1) getting the DRO's prepared; 2) having them submitted to the plans for pre-approval (if they even have a pre-approval process); 3) submitted to the court so a judge can sign it; and, 4) presented to the plan so they can pay her what she is entitled to. But you and I know that your father is not going to agree to let her control the process. There are two things I would suggest: 1) get a copy of each plan's "QDRO Procedures". Both plans are big enough that they might have the information publicly available or will send the information out to anyone who asks, without the need to identify a specific plan participant. 2) SHE NEEDS COMPETENT LEGAL ADVICE. It doesn't need to necessarily be expensive legal advice, either. There are various organizations that exist to offer low cost family law assistance, if your mom qualifies. Good luck.

You may not need an amendment. Depends on document language. If funded on or before due date of tax return plus 30 days (so 10/15 is correct *IF* on extension to 9/15) it counts for 415 purposes in the prior year. If funded after 10/15 and before 11/14 then it counts for 415 purposes in the prior year if on extension to 10/15. Counting the contribution for 415 purposes in the current year is rarely a problem unless the recipient terminated employment very early in the current year. How many people in the plan? Share the data (no names or SSN's please) if you feel like it. Until I see the data I'm never convinced that a plan fails. There would only be an excise tax if the contribution for 2015 ends up being non-deductible in some way. Almost unheard of (theoretically possible but highly, and I mean *HIGHLY*, unlikely).

Grouping?? Restructuring where they got lazy and only printed it one way? (the wrong way) I'm never convinced a test fails unless I can put the data in my own system to confirm. Have you done that?

Where does this stuff come from?

Look at the 410(a) regs. There is an example there that takes a bite out of this idea.

The requirement is for "pension" plans, I believe, so it applies to DB and MP, but not PS and 401(k).

Where do people come up with these concepts? Its like swatting flies in the middle of a landfill.

Right.

I think msmith is thinking that just because they had to use the ABT to reduce the coverage % (which requires aggregating all four plans) that they are somehow forced into considering all four as aggregated for coverage. Not true.

I think you are confusing issues. He is a key for 2015. However, if you are doing a calendar year test for being top-heavy or not in 2015 then you look to his status as key or not as of 12/31/2014.

Why wouldn't 2015-28 apply to all years?

Depends on plan terms. Doubtful if plan uses safe-harbor definitions.

Why not 2015?

No minimum. Just make sure document dovetails to client wishes. No problem with retro effective date pre-dating existence of corp. that I'm aware of.

No, it results, as Tom says, in the limit increase.

I get 239.619 (not 239.7), but I agree with the likely conclusion. Stated a slightly different way, the annualized rate of inflation between Aug and Sep needs to be 6.76%. We haven't seen that rate of inflation for a very long time.