BFree

Perhaps the unasked question is: Is this rollover free from U.S. tax implications?

Watch out, if you don't do something about this, and the plan remains top-heavy, you will be working for half your current salary in 25 years. You should clarify what is going to happen next year asap.

If an employer sponsors two plans, and one is individually-designed, while the other is a prototype: Does the employer get to rely on Rev. Proc 2000-20, Section 19.05 where it says - "An employer that adopts, before the end of the remedial amendment period (determined without regard to the extension provided by this section), any M&P plan or volume submitter specimen plan of a sponsor or practitioner will, for purposes of this section, be deemed to have adopted each other M&P plan or volume submitter specimen plan of that sponsor or practitioner." - and extend the deadline for restating the individually-designed plan past Feb 28? Assume the individually-designed plan will be restated to a prototype. What if the individually-designed plan was not restated to a protoype, but merged into the existing prototype plan? Thanks.

We read all the time about 401(k) plan fees - what is acceptable to be paid from the plan, the affect of loads or other service fees, etc. What about DB plan fees? Are they not an issue because of the nature of the benefit given to participants (that is, participants need not be interested in fees because it has no bearing on their ultimate benefits)? I assume plan trustees are faced with same issues as with dc plans. Correct? Any insight is appreciated.

Thank you. That makes perfect sense.

Why is there a February 28 deadline? What will the IRS do differently after Feb 28? - Not accept determination letter filings for individually drafted plans? - Not review the GUST provisions in those plans? Sorry I don't have an answer to the original question.

I agree - you don't want your plan to come under IRS scrutiny. But let's remember who is playing audit roulette and where the question originated. The plan sponsor is the one who cannot come up with the data, and the plan sponsor is on the hook for any deficiencies. The questions, here, are posed by document providers - in your experience, what have been the sanctions imposed upon document providers who provide an incomplete document? (Understand that document provider is working with all the information it can get from the plan sponsor).

That still leaves unanswered the question of what are the consequences of not putting this information in the document. I suspect that upon audit, the IRS would (1) ask for the information and (2) ask for back-up. At some point, (3) a fine is levied. That means that you may have to reproduce ADP/ACP for prior years. If you cannot get summarized results now, it may or may not be impossible to re-create those tests in a few years. In any case, I don't agree that not having this information should be an automatic "disqualifier" for keeping someone as a client.

Huh? http://www.benefitslink.com/articles/pridd...ddy000928.shtml

Usually, the question is the other way around (can they participate in the PEO plan/are they PEO employees?) and you will get some disagreement. Your question is essentially whether employees can participate in their Employer's plan, and the answer is "Yes." There shouldn't be any problems getting a plan written to include what you acknowledge are employees. There will be issues about whether they can roll over or transfer their balances to the new plan, as there may not be a distributable event.

I think it would be better to say that, in hindsight, sometimes day trading works out (Hey - I'd risk $200 day-trading if I thought I could turn it into $200,000). To say it makes sense is to say that you have more information than the market for an extended period of time and can make returns in excess of your fees.

Since the "qualified" part of "disqualified" refers to tax qualificatioin, I doubt that the assets from a disqualified plan would be eligible for rollover. I have no first-hand experience with it, though.

If you mean those employees who can be excluded by statute (those with less than 1 year of service or who have not attained age 21), the answer is "No." This assumes you are creating the plan. If the plan is in existence, the answer is to read the document. If by in the plan you mean "in the ADP/ACP tests," the answer is "No."

http://www.benefitslink.com/taxregs/1.401a31.shtml The above link indicates that, pre-EGTRRA, this was clarified to take some of the burden off the receiving employer.

No, it's not a workable approach. The common currency in this country is the U.S. dollar, and mandating that employers pay their workers in something other than dollars may have the desired effect, but it will also have unintended consequences. As for ideas, I take more kindly to incentives rather than mandates.

So, one point is to comply with the law. I was wondering if there is some reason behind the requirement besides documentation purposes. There are many operational aspects of a plan that are not noted on a historical basis in the plan document, so this seems like a change to me. Thanks for your response.

What is the point in giving historical information about ADP/ACP testing in a GUST document? If that information is not completed in a protoype and the plan is audited or submitted for a determination letter, what are the likely consequences? Note that I am not saying that testing wasn't completed but, at this point, it cannot be determined if current or prior year data was used. Thanks.

The 402(g) limit is based on the calendar year. In recent years, the limit has risen based on cost of living, but in $500 increments only. I believe the general consensus here is "yes" to the fiscal-year catch-up question.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/hlthins/verif.html MoJo: The above link is to a U.S. Census Bureau report from August 2001. It gives the number of uninsured in America as 42.6 million people. Unless the population of the U.S. is under 86 million, the 50% figure is a s-t-r-e-t-c-h. http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd092801c.html If you don't trust government agencies, the above link is to the National Center of Policy Analysis. It gives the number of uninsured as 14%. I did a *cursory* check of the stats.

MoJo - more than 1/2 of the people in this country are uncovered by health insurance? That, and your statement that implies that at least 1/4 of the people in this country lead lives that are short and of less quality (than what?), are less than believable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2001Dec18.html Participants and the company give differing accounts of how long the Enron blackout was. Neither side is arguing that the blackout was any longer than 20 trading days, though. Funny how the details make the story seem different to someone familiar with such blackout periods.

Why don't you ask what you can take or not take before getting into an confrontational situation? Ask to take off All Saints Day, the Assumption of Mary or 12th day of Christmas and see what the response is. Maybe St. Patrick's Day or Good Friday if you don't currently get those off from work. Maybe you should say that you're interested in Judaism and the ramifications of conversion (I think that could be an honest enough statement) and that you would like the days off yourself. Then reassess your job situation.

AndyH - you say that I have a right to a statement of my accrued benefit. I am a terminated participant, can I assume that my accrued benefit will not change? (This is a DB plan. I terminated several years ago and received an accrued benefit statment. Payments begin about 30 years from now). Thanks.

It doesn't seem to be an expense now that it has been paid. Can't you think of any new expenses?

A plan has terminated and will begin paying out participants next week. The plan requires an audit for 2001. Can the participant count on the 2001 Form 5500 reflect accured distributions (checks cut in 2001 but not cashed by 12/31/01)? The trustee would like to bring the participant count down to under 100 so that an audit is not required for 2002. If the answer is "Yes," do you have a response or citation for the auditors who say that accrued distributions cannot be reflected in the participant count? Any guidance is appreciated.