abanky

I have an end of the year CB plan at 12/31/2009 there was 65 participants... at 12/31/2010 there are 104 participants... at 1/1/2011 there are 110 participants Do I have to see approval to change to a boy valuation for 2011 or is it automatic because of the size?

I have a new CB plan as of 1/1/2010. The Profit sharing plan went from 7-1-2009 to 6-30-10, then was amended and now is a calendar year plan with a short plan year. For testing, do I test the CB plan with the PS benefits that accumulated during 2010 or is it more difficult?

And when you say "all employees past" do you mean all employees since the freeze or the past service of all active employees?

Would the same situation apply if we decided to terminate the plan and increase benefits at that time to deal with overfunding?

The plan has a 2011 aftap of 104%. They would also contribute to the 2010 plan year in an amount to make up increase to all participants. So basically, I would have to do a 401a4 test for the plan on the new increases in accruals, but could get away without inviting any employees who were not in the plan because of the freeze (assuming i could pass the test).

I have a traditional DB plan that has been frozen for several years. currently there is 1 hce and 3 actives with vested benefits. The plan sponsor wants to increase the benefits of the HCE about 20%. Would the plan violate anything by increasing the benefits to all participants by 20%? or would the plan have to unfreeze, let everyone who was not in the plan in and increase the benefits that way?

thanks Andy

I have a person who entered the CB plan but not the PS plan for 2010. they got an CB allocation. Term w/ 1000 hours Do I 1) leave them out of the gateway calculation 2) give them more CB allocation to get them up to gateway (i'm averaging db gateways %, so it doesn't seem like that would work) 3) force their entry into the PS plan to get them to the gateway. my initial thought is that they do not qualify for the gateway, since they did not get an "employer contribution"

The late retirement definition of the plan is basically at the participants request he may continue working, but shall start receiving payments as though he had actually retired on the normal retirement date. At the close of each plan year prior to the participant's actual retirement dated, such participant shall be entitled to a monthly retirement benefit equal to the greater of (1) the participants monthly retirement benefit as the close of the prior plan year, or (2) the participants ab determined at the close of the plan year, offset by the actuarial value of the total benefits distributions made by the close of the plan year. pretty normal stuff. well, the participant didn't actually start taking payments until he was 69 1/2. So the ab was actuarially increased to that point, instead of paying him past payments with interest. My question is this for his 1/1/2011 ab, do I calculate it like this... the greater of 1) his actuarially increased benefit at 1/1/2010, or 2) his actuarially increased benefit at 1/1/2010 + his 2010 accrual - the actuarial value of his distributions. Thank you, Andrew

Here's the background... for all of history and 2008, the plan used MVA 2009 and 2010, the plan used 2 year smoothing Can I get automatic approval to change the AVA to MVA for 2011? or do I have to get approval? Andrew

Anyone know any code section that would verify Don's option 1? I'm trying to find something to verify this option.

Thanks Andy, that's what i thought.

I have a cash balance plan which for 2009 gave an allocation of 2% to the NHCEs and passed the meaningful benefit test (i'm taking the view of 40% of all nonexcludables get a .5% accrual)... now in 2010, i have to give 2.1% to the NHCEs to pass... do I have to amend the plan for this change? or can I always plan on giving 2% to the Nhces and then if need be to increase the allocation as dictated? Thanks, Andrew

Andrew, the moral of the story is that upon audit or review, the IRS agents won't know all this stuff. They'll just slap a 'Your Out" tag on you, and leave it to you to argue that you slid in under the tag. Not really worth it. Lol, thanks Andy... I told the client I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole... He finally agreed that the benefit of the plan to him way out weighed the cost he had to pay to his employees.

A guy starts a company on 1/1/2010 and is the only employee on that day... 1/12/2010, he hires several employees. Wants to start a plan, effective 1/1/2010, with 1 year of service age 21, dual entry, but anyone employed on 1/1/2010 is in the plan... can he have the plan by himself for the first year?

Thanks David for the reply. I'm positive no AFTAP was issued. My thoughts would be to certify the aftap with full restrictions now, issue a Notice of Benefit Restrictions, do the 1/1/2010 Valuation.

i just got a takeover plan, calendar year, less than 100 participants. It was suppose to have a 1/1/2010 valuation, but wasn't done. I'm assuming my first step would be to issue a 10/1 aftap for full restrictions. Correct?

I'm thinking is proprietary. thanks david for your reply.

i'm looking for the full disability table with these factors age 20 Male .036% Female .017% Age 30 Male .055% Female .043% Age 40 Male .109% Female .1% .... Age 60 Male .68% Female .465% I'm also looking for a withdrawal table with these factors age 25 male 9.9% Female 14.9% age 30 male 6.9% Female 9.9% .... age 50 male .4% Female 1.7% age 55 male 0% Female .4% age 60 male 0% Female 0% i'm just trying to reconstruct a prior result. Andrew

Thank you so very much.

The spouse.

The owner was taking his rmd in the form of a 100% J&S in 2009. In October of 2009, he terminated his employment and elected to take a lump sum distribution. He had already taken out his 2009 RMD. Unfortunately, the plan was unable to pay him out because of the 1.401(a)-5(b)(3) restriction. In November of 2009, he passed. For 2010, the plan now has enough assets that no restrictions are in place. What are the plan's options?

That's what I thought, Thanks tom

Can a plan impose a 2 year eligibility to receive safe harbor contributions?

Thanks David, I see that now.