Brian Gallagher

I might be wrong, but I don't think the P/S contrib counts as a key empl. contribution. therefore i think the highest contrib would be 2.77%

Thanks for the text it was very helpful. s there somewhere on the web I can go to see all of this stuff? The regs and all the Q&A's. Please bear with me as I'm new to finding all this stuff online and I'm tired of asking my pension consulting staff to look this stuff up for me (and I'm sure they're tired of me asking!)

Can someone give me a link to see the Q&A 10 on 1.72(p)? Everywhere I look on Google gives me stuff that cites it, but I can't find the actual text of the Q&A Any help would be MUCH appreciated.

I just read n the Pension Answer Book (2003) that "the amount of a deemed distribution equals the entire outstanding balance of the loan (including accrued interest) at the time of such failure." It cites Treas Reg 1.72(p)1, Q&A-10 Would it seem fair to apply this to my situation, that is, figuring out the highes outstanding balance in the past 12 mos?

..

Where in the regs does it say that pre 87 distributions from after tax can be taken from principle first and then from the earnings, whereas post 86 has to be taken pro rata between principle and earnings?

Is there anything in the code or rev rulings or ERISA or regs or anything to support one way or another?

When considering the max amount for a 401k loan, I know that you take into consideration the highest outstanding loan "balance" in the past 12 mos. My systems uses the highest principle and interest balance in the last year, but I thought it was just the principle that counted. Which is it? And do the regs anywhere define what a loan "balance" is? I just know the client will be wanting it explicitly spelled out.

i clicked on the link and all it did was open a new browser with a page of all of the current boards! :-(

I know the regs say for a safe harbor hardship, all distributions and loans must be taken first. Someone told me that if a loan would be considered a burden itself, then it doesn't have to be taken and the participant can go ahead and take the h'ship without first having a loan. Is this true? Is it written anywhere? Your thoughts are appreciated as always.

i believe elective deferrals are treated as employer contributions, too.

i wasn't trying to equate buying a primary residence with being evicted from one, but rather trying to further clarify the definition of it. it doesn't make sense that you have to own a primary residence in order to get a hardship to purchase one, but you don't have to own one to get a hardship to be evicted from it. bottom line...to me, if I'm giving you money to buy a house that will be where I'm going to live (my primary residence), then it should qualify. am i correct in saying that somewhere on you taxes you have to declare a primary residence? forgive me, I know next to nothing about taxes

I would say that this could be satisfied after the fact....if the person can show a cancelled check for the amount of the hardship paid to the bank, that would show he purchased the residence. as for the fact of primary residence being "owned and used", what about an apartment. hardship rules provide relief from being evicted from a "primary residence", which would include an apartment or rented house. obviously there is no ownership involved, but usage certainly is.

FYI-- plural of prospectus is prospectuses gotta luv the English language...tons of rules and many more exceptions

The Pension Answer Book or the 401k Answer Book are pretty good for most questions. The ERISA Outline book probably would be a good resource, too.

I have a 401k plan who wants to lower it's early retirement age to 50 yrs old. can a 54 yr old take a distribution while still working w/out the 10% penalty? in otherwords, does becoming 50 become a distributable event in this plan?

All the code says is that excesses must be "distributed" within 2 1/2 months. I take that to mean "out of the account", not necessarily the check being in anyone's particular hands. What if you had mailed the checks and it took a week in the mail? The code section I looked at is IRC 4979(f). 4979 is about the penalty tax.

My companys uses a FIFO method for determining earnings on excess amounts. Does anyone know if FIFO is mandated in the code? Could we use LIFO? If you could point me to the regs where it says FIFO, or LIFO or either, I would appreciate it. I could have sword I read it in the ERISA Outline book, but I can't seem to find it.

Can someone point me to a good site that has a listing of the Treasury Regs. I want to point a client to the specific wording of Treas Reg 1.401(k)-1(f)(4)(ii) A site with all the regs would be great. Thanks!

Was the rollover from a related employer? If so, then it needs to be included. Otherwise, I believe it would not count towards his balance. For the Pension Answer Book 2003: In the case of unrelated rollovers, the plan making the distribution counts the amount and the plan receiving it does not consider it if it was accepted after 1983 For related rollovers, the distributing plan does not count it and the receiving plan does, regardless of the date. (it is question 26:19)

Well, how long were the incorrect deferrals being contributed? If it was a whole year or more, then you may have a problem. A couple months you may get away with.

Has anyone had any experience with negative enrollments? I'm looking for feedback as to dropout rates and general participant feelings about the process. I have a plan that is thinking of using negative enrollments as a way to increase participation.

i was under the impression that salary deferrals are considered employER contributions. the only employEE contribs are either rollover or after-tax contributions. simply, employER contributions are one that may be deducted on the company's taxes, thus people deferrals are included in that. am i right in thinking this was, or did i over-simplify it?

There is a link to the final regs "...Relating to Notice of Blackout Periods to Participants and Beneficiaries..." on the dol website. it seems to say that exclusions to the blackout period may be: regularly scheduled blackouts, QDRO's, suspension of ability to make transaction do to the actions of the participant. Since the people would normally have been able to "direct or diversify" their assets, I would think this is a "blackout" situation under Sarbanes-Oxley. Plus, conservative is usually the way to go in situations like this. Would it be very hard to provide the notice?

just remember that it IS included in 415