Jim Chad

In my post above I was using the word plan where others might use the word trust. I have never worked on a plan with a separate trust though I have heard of them. More to the point: I have always applied for the EIN in the name of the Plan. I think you did it right.

Thanks for the confirmation, Belgarath.

This restatement period, I'm using a volume submitter with an adoption agreement instead of a prototype. I can't find a code for this. It seems odd to me. Is there a code for Volume submitters and I just can't see it? Are VS and prototype both 3E?

Hi DBOY In a way, you are right...it shouldn't be too difficult to fix. After all, it only affected you. On the other hand this is the IRS we are talking about dealing with here. A couple of quick questions. You said you are the only one in the Plan. Did you have any employees since 2003? When was the last time the Plan was amended? Will the limits on a SEP allow you to put in as much as you want to? My email is jchad@lettinga.com

I'm wondering about the same things as bird. For 25 years I have seen annuities in small plans because the owner wanted some money in a fixed account. Among my plans there have been no real problems. PGOLD When you say it is based on the owner's age, are you saying that it is paying a monthly benefit guaranteed for the life of the owner? This would be bad. But if you have an annuity contract that has the owner's name and age on it, that isn't bad at all. There area lots of options to get money out, if some of the 10 employees leave and are entitled to a distribution.

This is interesting. One thought about this refers to planning on being SH and failing to pass out the notice. With my doc I have a blown Safe Harbor Plan and have to go through EPCRS. With this doc you simply have a non-SH Plan that year.

My first thought would be to self correct by amending the Plan to accept rollovers, if the client approves. My second thought would be to "cancel" the whole thing by amending the 1099 to all zeros.

Mike's reply made me want to read your question again. And he is correct. You can not test the 1% separately from the 3% separately from the 4 %. These are all non-electives and must be tested together. The closest thing you can do is rate group test on an allocation basis. Test everyone who receives 8% and test everyone who receives at least 7% and test everyone who receives at least 4% and test everyone who receives at least 3% and test everyone who receives at least 1% Mike, it has been a long week. Am I missing something?

A client in an unusual situation wants to be certain of bankruptcy protection and wants the added protection of having a a determination letter. No body has the first document from the 80's. Will the IRS issue determination letter if you do not give them all of the documents for the Plan?

Blue, I think you are right. If you are thinking that there will never be an HCE in the group of people with less than 1,000 hours, I can't see how you could have a problem.

All of these are non-elective and need to pass 401(a)(4). If I understand what you are asking, if you disaggregate, you will be basically rate group testing and yes that is allowed.

The Corbel VS document has that language to exclude "part-timers" like so many employers want to do. Blue, my understanding of it is you should treat it as if a person was included based on job title and the fact that they later did not work 1,000 hours is not relevant. Steve brings up a question I haven't thought through. How are you testing for coverage on this? Can you contact your document provider? I would be interested to know what they say and I would like to know how testing is handled.

I think there is no application fee or filing fee for the EBSA VFCP. Can anyone correct or confirm?

Yes and the big prize is no audit

I Received the new EO on Thursday and it did help. But I don't have enough brain cells to contemplate this much info at one time. I need something like: Step one: Put in missed deferrals: Step 2 Decide whether or not to file under VFCP or self correct. Advantages of VFCP and disadvantages: a b c Step ? calculate "missed" earnings Step? Contribute lost earnings Step 3: Decide whether or not to file 5330 Step 4 Put note in 5500 file to report this when completing current and possibly next year's 5500 Step ? Look at dates involved. Is it necessary to amend last year's 5500?

What is a death audit?

Regarding late deferrals, has anyone put together a flowchart or checklist dealing with both the IRS and DOL requirements and any decisions to be made? Late deferrals are such a pain!

I think this could be done with a flexible document. (I'm thinking of each person in their own group). But it would have to pass the math tests showing the plan is not more discriminatory than is legally allowed. Also, for the testing, compensation would have to be based on the one most recent year.

The document might tell you to allocate to other Participants, if there are any. If there are no other Participants, then yes, it will be a 2009 contribution and there will be a penalty for a nondeductible contribution for 2008. I think it is 6%. Can anybody confirm or correct?

The 402(g) limit is a per person per calendar year limit and yes, it does include SEP and 401(k)...... one $15,500 limit per person for 2008.

EPS2 First look at the doc to see whether you allocate at the end of the year of forfeiture or the year following forfeiture. These are the only two choices I have seen. But there may be other possibilities, also. Your question is a good one. FWIW Here is a way to look at it that seems right to me. A participant has been distributed his "entire vested benefit", when there is no expectation of him receiving more money. In this case you are expecting him to receive more money.

I would check to make sure that the $89.20 wasn't from a prior year. If it wasn't, than I would talk to the accountant and recommend what you suggested..... Treat it as if he has already received $89.20 of the SHMAC or PS.

Bill! So cynical! So Pessimistic! I use the same question.

FWIW I think it will make the Plan subject to ERISA. Of course a court may do anything, but certainly this position is defensible. And If the child uses the ROTH provisions, I think the case is even stronger

Asset protection is the goal and the protection is higher for an ERISA Plan than for a non- ERISA plan. SO I think the goal is to include the child if it will change an owner only plan into an ERISA Plan. R... Is this right?