Jim Chad

My software (Relius) has the option to use several mortality tables. There are several years to choose from, individual or group and male and female to choose. The 1983 Group Annuity Male seems to be the default. Any thoughts?

In Plan specs and in nondescrim testing assumptions, there is an option to choose nearest birthday or last birthday. Can anyone tell me which is the best choice to use for crosstesting? I think that in Plan specs, Plan Entry Requirements, I want to follow the document for Plan Entry. And I think I want age nearest in testing assumptions for Cross testing. Any thoughts?

You have my sympathies. You may want to warn the client ahead of time that you will be billing by the hour to fix this. Of course you will want to make this change on the next form 5500 showing the change in box 4. As for 945, 1099R and 1096....If everything is done for one year and nothing for the next year, I would be tempted to just do next years forms correctly. But I would be prepared to deal with IRS inquiries as they come up. Good Luck.

You do have to start with a "regular" 401(k) Plan and then choose to include the option of allowing ROTH deferrals. It is not legal to allow ROTH deferrals and not pretax deferrals. But it is legal to never use the pretax option.

I dealt with a situation like this 15 years ago. At first the union rep wanted it in the 401(k) document, too. But since the match would have to increase for 3 years, and the document would have to be amended each year, I pushed to have the Plan Doc flexible enough to accept what other contracts required the Employer to do. I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly all of the attornies agreed to this. I never saw a problem with it.

I also use it to offset my fees. But often the amounts are so small it is hardly worth the trouble. Lori, Your approach has my interest. How do you disclose this to your clients?

On the 401(k0 Board there is a thread aobut notifiying Participants of things they can do to get the full match and things they can do wrong. Other than making sure it is discussed at education meetings, I have not found another way to bring this to the Particiapnt's attention. Does anyone have other ideas? Is this in SPD's or Relius commonly asked questions?

QDROphile, that sounds like experience talking. I have had that unpleasant experience, also. Other than making sure it is discussed at education meetings, I have not found another way to bring this to the Particiapnt's attention. Does anyone have other ideas?

I would also highly recomend te user groups. You can find the ones near you on the SunGard Website.

If the document says to calculate it on a per pay basis, you should not do a true up. I have never felt this was fair. FWIW But I have 4 Plans that do this to make things simpler and it does help. If the document does not have this provision, the assuption is for annual and a true up is required.

How long were investment choices not implemented?

I had 2 plans make this change this year. Both of the Plan docs gave participants the right to direct investments. So, I had to amend the doc and I used the Summary of Material modifications as the notice that was handed out to the employees.

Did anyone terminate employment? Will there be a 415 problem?

Yes. in your example he can. It should not be a problem. I have seen Plans with age only, years only, and both. And you are correct about in service withdrawels form deferral source being related to age, whether or not it is mentioned in the document. ( It should be in the doc)

I believe you are on the right track. A couple of thoughts: You are basically correct in thinking that you have to treat a leased employee that has been performing services for more than a year as if he were an employee of the company. Next, you may be able to exclude leased employees in your document and if you still pass coverage testing, you may be OK excluding them forever. There are other requirements to the Money Purchase Pension to give you that escape hatch. You might want to seek legal council or just cover them like "regular" employees.

Does anyone know if FT William has an IRS approval letter on a document with this Safe Harbor language?

There are several times during the year when I want to batch print one report for many companies. In the group I have set up, some Plans are calendar year and some are fiscal year. The date I would like to print is for what ever is the last date of the latest plan year on my computer. When I try to print, there is almost always a few Plans that won't print. Now Relius will not let me delete these plans without a lot of bother in actually changing the group. I have found that some choices for date work better than others. Plan year is the best choice I have found. I would like to hear what the best choice for date other people have found. Thanks.

Thanks, Janet.

That's a good question! I thought there was a rule that once you started filing 5500 you could not switch to 5500EZ. But I sure can't find anything about this now. So, unless someone shows me where I can't, that is what I am going to do. Thanks WDIK.

Profit sharing plan paid out only employee in 2002. This left just the owner and he now has mostly non qualifiying assets, $700,000. Schedule I 4k My question is: can he claim a waiver on audit without a bond based on his being the only person in the Plan?

HI Janet: Yes. He is definitely an indepnedant contractor. Bill, You are right, i'm trying but, I haven't succeeded yet. For now, I am putting him in a class called excludable as if he were union, etc. I think Relius will exclude him from testing properly. I haven't had time to check that out yet, though.

I recieve a weekly excel sheet showing compensation from a payroll department. There is comp for a manufacturer's Rep who is not an employee included in it. It is very easy for us to mistake him for a commision salesman of this company and bring him into the Plan. I want to exclude him and I can see 2 ways to do. I can either create a class or a division of "always excluded". Does anyone see a preference of one over the other?

I bill some of my Plans on the basis of Participant defined as Eligible +terminated with account balance. Does anyone know of a report which shows active Participants and account balance for version 12X? It would be great if it counted them, but I would settle for a report with a column of names, column showing status and a 3rd column showing account value, preferably vested value.

"Who's the Employer?" by Derrin Watson is a great book on the subject. If you add to it the "Coverage and Nondiscrimination Answer Book from Panal publishers, by Tom Poje and Amy Cavanaugh,you will have it all.

I'm surprised no one took a swing at this. So I will tell you that I agree with you. FWIW