Tom Poje

I suppose in this day and age if I held up a round black vinal object with a small hole in the center most of the youth today wouldn't even know the object is called a record. For 122 I imagine there's a group of people who don't know what the moonshine making devices are... I reviewed the list of answers- turns out one of the songs Babes in Toyland wasn't even on the list! I numbered the song list (including Babes in Toyland) and then created an excel puzzle sheet in which you type in the number of the song and it checks to see if you are correct. That means you could type in a number 1 to 260 in a square and eventually find the answer. well, if I did everything correctly. managed to get the song list to print to 2 pages only. wish I had thought about putting things in this format initially.

ok, 1 hint since I wouldn't have known For the Beach Boys song, see Melekalikimaka. "Mele Kalikimaka" is a Hawaiian-themed Christmas song that takes its title from the Hawaiian phrase, "Mele Kalikimaka," meaning "Merry Christmas I managed to solve all but 11 or so, and then a couple I think have alternate answers.

All plans are aggregated for purposes of the avg ben pct test. there is no pick and choose. It does not matter whether you permissively aggregate plans or not. it does not matter if some contributions are deferral or match or safe harbor, everything gets lumped together for this test (except catch-up contributions and the highly unlikely after tax contributions. there is only one avg ben pct test per employer(except for otherwise excludables, which could be run separately). hence, if the avg ben pct test pass, then that portion of testing will pass no matter what combination of permissively aggregating plans you do. of course, you would never use deferrals or safe harbor match in the rate group test.

as for 102, I'm guessing, since it's true, at least in my guess since I'm getting "nuttin for Christmas" as for 122, your point is well taken. Still...

the Grinch is used to being 'hated'. makes him feel all warm and fuzzy inside. or is that on the outside. I forget. what I like best about it is the fact the puzzle was downloaded 55 times, but the list of songs only 40 times, so there are some people who must really be good at this. Years ago I obtained the answer sheet when there were only 80 puzzles, I've got some other guesses so will submit sometime and obtain the full answer sheet for those who are really interested. As the individual who puts this together said, in some cases there may be 'alternative' answers - its mainly suppose to be 'fun', but he must think torture is fun. I know from the last time I simply don't understand a few of them, some I think are rather clever.

can you do it and get away with it, or perhaps would anyone at the DOL enforce the following. or even, is anyone aware of the following. (This is from an ASPPA Conference many moons ago, they must have had a DOL Q and A session, the few notes I have say this was 2000, and the example used would imply that as well). Never thought about this before in the context as presented. Question 5: A 401(k) plan has 150 participants. The plan must file a full 5500 and have an audit by an accounting firm. Due to the cost of the audit ($10,000 or $15,000), my suggestion to the client is to split the plan into two plans, each with 75 participants. For 2000 there will be an audit. The plans could be split into two plans on December 31, 2000. Therefore, on January 1, 2001, both plans have less than 100 participants and no audit required. For tax qualification testing, they can be permissively aggregated. In fact, my plan is to administer as if it was one plan and just separate for 5500 purposes. Is my conclusion correct? Answer: This question raises issues of avoidance and evasion. It is not certain that you really have two plans for purposes of Title I of ERISA in this instance--even if there may be two plans for Internal Revenue Code purposes. In Advisory Opinion 84-35A, the Department stated it would consider, among others, the following factors in determining whether there is a single plan or several plans in existence: who established and maintains the plans, the process and purposes of plan formation, the rights and privileges of plan participants and the presence of any risk pooling, i.e., whether the assets of one plan are available to pay benefits to participants of the other plan. This Advisory Opinion also notes that the Internal Revenue Service has cited the existence or absence of risk pooling between funds as relevant to the determination of single plan status. See §1.414(1)-1(b) 26 C.F.R. §1.414(1)-1(b). In DOL Advisory Opinion 96-16A, the Department stated its position that whether there is a single plan or multiple plans is an inherently factual question on which the Department ordinarily will not opine in the Advisory Opinion process.

HCEs by comp you will have 2 owner and one other and you are allowed to use whatever tie breaker you want. flip a coin, etc. then you add back all other owners as HCE as well.

Ah, such situations are clearly described in the 401(k) regs. one of the few times I understand 100% of what they are saying. I'll quote the whole site: 1.401(k)-5 Special rules for mergers, acquisitionsand similar events. [Reserved] in other words, at least at this time, you put forth a good faith effort. I don't see any 'holes' in Sieve's comment.

I lean towards including them on the following grounds: you formula sounds something like this (I'll change it a little): 0% match for those who defer 0 - 3% 25% match for those deferring 3 - 5% 50% match for those deferring 5 - 7% now I know you can't do that if you were to change % to years of service (or I seem to recall), because it becomes a disguised eligibility but, that being said, now that I put that down, I think something similar was discussed many moons ago and I don't recall the result of that discussion.

It's been 3 years, i see there are now 130 songs to identify by the picture, and the song list is now 260 songs. good grief, I have a list of answers for the first 79 but never have done more than that. though if you really want, you could try your hane at them and send your guesses...er answers to the guy at http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/christmaspuzzlelongpuzzle.htm and he will send you the full answer list. then you can really spoil everyone's day by posting the answers here before others have had a chance to even tackle the problem. bah humbug. for the rest of us, have fun.

well amongst a host of references (e.g you could use anything pertaining to a controlled group) but try 1.401(k)-2(a)(3)(ii) ADR of HCEs eligible under more than one arrangement....in more than one arrangement of the same employer....

the gateway is only required if you need to cross test. I suspect, based on what you said, the plan would probably pass on an alloaction basis and thus avoid the gateway. (unless you had over 30% termination rate and no HCEs in the group of terminees)

If the document says the plan is safe harbor, then it is safe harbor, regardles of whether a notice is provided or not. Failure to provide a notice is a failure to follow the terms of the document, which require a notice to be provided. rumor had it theat the new version of EPCRS would even contain an example of how to correct such a failure, but that is only a rumor, as we really won't know until the new EPCRS comes out. hopefully it will. so, yes, amend the documnet before plan year begins to say it is no longer a safe harbor. issue a notice by Dec 1 that says it might be safe harbor for 2011. if they do indeed want to be a safe harbor, then a follow up notice must be issued, and the plan has to be amnded to indicate it will indeed be safe harbor (at least for the 2011 plan year)

interesting. the plans themselves would face no disqualification issue because neither accepted deferrals over the limit. assuming the 401k plan has the proper language it should be possible for the individual to request the return of excess deferrals. This would mean the person is taxed in the year the deferral is made, not the year it was distributed as for a failed ADP test. and as I recall the amount of excess contributions is reduced by the amount of any excess deferrals returned.

I'll send you a report that might work with a tiny bit of modification. it is a 'plan list' report you run out of crystal (rather than Relius custom). it uses the plan spec user fields, so if thats what you are going to use I would think you could modify whatever user fields I was using.

yes, someone may already have a report you are looking for and would share it, so just describe the basics of what you are looking for in the way of a report.

I asked the lady in the office who used to work for an investment house or two - she says it has more to do with their distribution forms - one house has only one spot to put the total dollar amount, so they do it pro rata, another house has a form that you can indicate what source the $ should come from, so I guess its going to vary from one investment house to another. I guess I can sorta see the argument for it being an annuity (in a way) but only 'cuz I'm ready to run out the door and have a few days off.

masteff: now you got me real curious. (I know you already agree, but for the sake of the argument) in the case discussed here, it was a new plan. lets suppose NRD was 65/5 and there was a match subject to vesting. so the individual in question has both deferral and 0% vested match. Now, 1.401(a)(9)-5 Q/A 8 ask what if a protion is not vested how does that effect the calculation. it still requires the min distribution to be determined based on the total balance. ...and if the "total amount" of the employee's vested balance is less than the required minimum distribution, only the vested portion is required to be distributed. Now, based on your comments the investment house would say you have to take money from the match source, but since it is 0 vested that would be impossible. however, I would read the reg to say you look at the total vested balance, and pay out if you can, which would certainly be the case if deferrals are involved. gobble gobble from Tom Turkey

in this world there are 3 basic types of contribution elective contributions - (deferrals) separate coverage test, nondiscrim test is the ADP test matching contributions (match and after tax but not Roth which are deferrals), separate coverage, nondiscrim test is ACP nonelectives - (profit sharing) sepearte coverage and nondiscrim test (a(4) which is quite often cross tested now, what confuses people, if a plan fails the ratio % test, it can rely on the general test which includes the average ben % test. this test is the only test that combines everything. so when you ask if matches are included with profit sharing - the answer is 'yes' along with deferrals if you are talking about the avg ben % test. but for rate group testing, no they are not included.

wow, that thought never even crossed my mind. I've never even seen an example which said minimum distribution is $5000 and you must take x% from deferral, y% from match and the remainder from ps. I guess that must be taken the interpretation that you can't aggregate plans (e.g. money purchase and profit sharing together - the regs even have examples of that as failing minimum distributions) closest I see to addressing it in the regs is 1.401(a)(9)-8 q-2 which asks if the regulations apply seperately to each seperate account in a DC plan and the answer was they are aggregated unless they are divided into separate accounts by each beneficiary. oh well, teach this old dog some new tricks.

you did not indicate if the top heavy went to non-key employees. if the top heavy goes to all employees, then the key receieves but that kicks him up to a higher percentage which kicks everyone else eventuyally to 3%, or at least as I understand it.

well, what if for the remainder of the year the owner makes deferrals to non-Roth accounts. maybe its a stretch, but... Granted he had no $ in a non-roth account before that date (I assume) but I don't recall reading anywhere that a minimum distribution has to come from a specific source, but rather it simply has to be made in an amount sufficent to cover the min distribution amount. e.g. I know of no one who says the min distrib is $500, lets see 42.3 has to be from deferral, 23.67 has to be from match and the rest from profit sharing because on 12/31/2010 thats the way the balances were.

loans can only be corrected under VCP anyway, so who knows what the IRS will say. section 6.07(2)(a) of EPCRS [rev proc 2008-50] which clearly says that corrections are not available if the loan has exceeded the max period available for repayment of the loan. 6.07(1) says that the 1099R can be for the year corrected (and interestingly enough) any applicable income tax paid by the employer. plan sponsor must specifically request such relief. I'd print out a copy of those sections and specifically highlihht or whatever and go from there again, who knows what the IRS will do or handle under VCP.

if I understand your question, someone (plan sponsor) needs to be lashed with a wet noodle 30 times (one for each day of the required notice) but maybe since its Thanksgiving they can be let off the hook. what you describe is next to impossible to have happened so I'm sure the 'actual' details will be figured out. when a plan provides a 'maybe' notice, the plan itself is not a safe harbor, unless it is amended with 30 days of the plan year end to be, in fact, a safe harbor plan, and a notice is issued indicating such. thus, while a 3% contribution 'may' have been made, it certainly isn't following any terms of the document unless the plan was actually amended to be a safe harbor. ugh, what happens with that 3%, I've never seen, but then you have the following... A notice was issued indicating the plan would not be safe harbor. the regs actually say if a plan issues a maybe notice then 30 days before plan year end the plan will issue a notice indicating it will indeed be a safe harbor (I don't see anything in 1.401(k)-3(f)(2) and (3) that says the plan will issue a notice saying it chose not to be a safe harbor. so I guess that notice really makes sense(I must admit I sort of assumed that a non safe harbor notice would be issued or maybe I read that somewhere, but looking at the regs, I can't find such a thing) so maybe the best thing to do is amend the plan to actually be a safe harbor (in some ways ignoring the follow-up notice which wasn't required in the first place). once amended, then the plan has to put the 3% in, so maybe the initial 3% is ok in around about way. (And the plan could be amended to be safe harbor only for the current year if so desired. and another maybe notice issued 30 days before plan year end.

dang it Andy, I've had that outfit from at least sometime in the 1600s - they made clothes to last back then. (and yes, in another few weeks when I change the picure this message will make no sense)