Jim Chad

PATA "If I apply for an EIN for a plan and when the plan opens an investment account at some brokerage house and uses that EIN when opening the account, " This is the way I like to do it. This way if someone sends a wrong 1099, no one's tax return is messed up. As for this keeping the number alive with the IRS, no, The only certain way to keep the number alive is to pay taxes (Form 945) with this EIN......but I still think it is worth doing. Also, the IRS has stopped freezing numbers.....or so I have heard.

The rest of what I was thinking and didn't type was 9 month eligibility instead of immediate. This along with the October 1st entry date might bring in fewer other employees.....or it might make no difference; depending on the employee make up.

I have just been informed that a terminated Participant with a Roth wants a distribution. Is there anything special required in the forms or notice?

Another option would be to amend to add a Oct. 1st entry date.

Since I read this yesterday, I have been thinking about where to look for a definitive answer. I have no idea. FWIW Here is the way I would deal with this. When.... no I mean if the PS contribution is made, both plans fail 415. I don't want to think in terms of when, because when the payments were made is irrelevant (I think). So both plans are failing 415, fix one of them, either one.

I have been pretty comfortable accepting faxes or emails. But I am even more comfortable now that I find many major investment companies such as John Hancock and American Funds prefer distribution forms be faxed.

In my prior life, I was licensed as a stock broker and it was drilled into us that the SEC and NASD regulations required that we pay any loss and the client keep any gain. If you are regulated by either of those or any state securities regulatory body, than this is the rule you have to follow. So here is my thoughts on what is right (FWIW) Really, really nice thing to do...apply it as a gain to the whole plan. In a daily plan that might be difficult. Good choice, Employer made mistake and would have had to make up any loss, so it seems reasoanable to me to offset my fee so employer benefits OK choice: I would not criticize a TPA that kept it to make up for some of the stupid costs caused by others, including clients, suppliers and the government. Here are my thoughts...Anyone else?

What I said in the previous post has worked very well for me. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard from anyone after suggesting that. Now I have a question. Has anyone ever suggested that the "expert" put it in writing? And how would you word it so it sounded serious and professional? I never have.....I wonder how that would work out.

Here is one idea that I have found to be effective. I suggest a lawsuit.....and here is how I do it. If you haven't thought of it yet, you will probably be thinking about contacting an attorney. Here is an idea that will save you a lot of money. Be sure to hire a pension attorney. (If I am talking to a broker I say ERISA attorney). Then I name the big law firms in town and say they all have one or two. They are going to charge you by the hour and if you have an attorney expert in pensions, then in 2 minutes he will know what I am talking about...and it will save you a ton of money.

My computer seems much slower since around the time I loaded 14.0. It takes 6 or seven seconds to open Plan Specs. and 3 or 4 seconds to print plan specs notes. These used to be instant. Even Excel is slow. It takes 18 seconds to open on a blank spreadsheet. I have a 3.4 chip and 2 gigs of ram and technology support says that I have plenty of resources. Anyone else running into this?

Hi John I'll start the discussion here. I would go with the usual caveat that when anything disagrees with the doc, the doc is superior authority. If the employer wanted 65/5, I would stay at 65/5. As far as the mention of catchups, I think it would be proper to ignore it. I am thinking that it says something like "in any plan that allows deferrals under a qualified CODA, catchups are allowed." That or it was that technical thing called a "screwup"...and I would still ignore it. At least, that is all I can think of right now,

I don't think this is addressed in the regs. FWIW I would not treat it as an inservice and I would not add it back.

Lou Here is a couple of ideas. Is the owner(s) over 59 1/2? If yes put the money in for a couple of days and take it out as an in service withdrawal. Next thought, under 59 1/2 you cannot take out deferrals or SHNECs, is there any money he can take out? Even with the 10% penalty for having put the money in the plan, he is still ahead if you count both halfs of FICA, maybe. 3rd idea terminate the Plan. Can he afford to continue the TPA fees and everything else to do this right for the next few years? 4th idea they have a whole year to pay the owners 3% less comp so they can afford this contrib. IF the 3% pay cut will kill them see idea 3

IMNTBHO I believe that the voluntary withholding rules do apply. This means that 10% is withheld unless the Participant opts out. Also, I often accept a phone call for instructions on withholding. FWIW

Two Good Points for me to look at: Thanks, John.

I want to amend a plan now to change from dual entry to quarterly entry effective 10-1-08. We talked about doing this last summer so a partner could come in to the Plan when he bought into the law practice. Over the summer we talked about many things including letting in his wife who was just starting as office manager. In August, when I heard never mind, just leave it the way it is. I left the whole Plan the way it is. He meant leave eligibility at 1 year. But go ahead and do what we discussed before and change entry dates to quarterly. This way the new partner will be in the Plan 10-1-08 instead of 1-1-09. By the way the new partner did defer $15,500 from his December bonus and made a enough money 4th quarter to want to put in a sizable discretionary non-elective. Is there anyway I can amend now to add 10-1-08 as a plan entry date? We will be bringing in 1 HCE and 1 NHCE. BTW the doc is VS with an adoption agreement.

J Simmons Nice catch! You are soooo right.

Annieruok, you were clear. That is the way I understood your question. My guess is that in updating: someone missed the second question. I have had one experience helping someone updating just one chapter for a new law. I was amazed at how difficult it is to catch all of the places the book referred to one change in the law. ....and there were many changes. I think your idea would certainly clarify it and might be in the next edition.

Question 2 is old law and refers to Plan Years beginning before 1-1-08......I think.

Under current law this is not a problem. You do not need a Individually designed plan. Any prototype or volume submitter that allows loans will probably be fine. I have never seen one that allowed loans that would not work. Has anyone else?

my understanding is that data administrator will delete the employee from all of Relius administration. I would rather not do that if I do not have to . I would prefer to just delete them from the year after I don't need them anymore. I am always concerned that I might get corrected census data (again) and have to redo my work.

Lou S Those are good questions! Have you ever noticed how when someone says that, they don't have a good answer. I cannot think of anywhere to look for the answer. So here is my opinion FWIW I think you would reduce his basis by the $5,000 whether the distributed amount is more because od gains or less because of losses. Anyone else have an opinion? It would be easy to convince me that I am wrong.

I used the subscription feature and found too many emails. I went back to using the "last 24 hours " feature. I like it better.

This is a Plan I do only ADP and ACP test. Every year, I get an Excel sheet with about 500 people on it, comp, DOB, DOH, date of plan entry, Soc SEC, NAME, comp, deferral, match paid through out the year. I have been opening a new plan and using DER gave everyone 0 beginning balance. Then, in census, I delete, everyone with no comp this year or last., one person at a time. Does anyone have a better way to delete people from the system?

If she is in her own group and she had low comp because she worked a short year, maybe you want to go the other way and give her a relatively big PS to help pass testing.