Tom Poje

sorry, nice try but one does not defer a 'catch-up'. catch ups are initailly allowed for exceeding a limit - either the 402(g) limit or a plan imposed limit. once those catch ups amounts have been determined, theADP test is run. if the plan fails testing, then any amounts still available under the catch up limit can be treated as such. there simply is no such option as "I can start out and treat $5,500 as catch up" in the regs. In your scenario, if you had a cap of 0% deferral limit on HCEs, then since the HCE hit the plan imposed limit, all 5,500 could be treated as catch up. this was actuall an example used in the preamble to the preliminary 401k regs. the example was removed, not necessarily because the IRS said no you can't do that, but possibly to save space. no one knows for sure. some argue that a 0% cap means the person can't defer in the first, so they also couldn't get a catch up. that makes little sense since that means one could put a meaningless cap of 1 cent and get around that problem.

I believe it depends on how soon after the funds are distributed the new plan is started. my understanding of the rules for Successor plan's is that you have to wait at 12 months after the distribution is made. but I could be wrong.

that would be my understanding

according to the instructions, it is the form preparer who registers for signing credentials, you are not registering at the DOL to obtain credentials for the client. I suppose you could and who would know, but then why would you need to attach a signed copy? Hopefully the DOL will add the verbage on the form to indicate 'electrinically signing on behalf of... The new signing procedure requires the following steps: 1. The plan sponsor/administrator must sign the completed 5500 form on paper. 2. The plan sponsor/administrator must sign an authorization to have the preparer electronically sign the 5500 on their behalf 3. The form preparer must register for signing credentials at the DOL EFAST2 registration website . 4. The form preparer must attach a copy of the first two pages of the signed 5500 as an "other" pdf attachment to the electronic filing. 5. The form preparer must electronically sign the 5500 using the PIN received from the DOL website. at least that is my understanding of how it works. someone else here reported similar results.

I think you only need filing signer in the end, your name will appear on the left side of the 5500 (the 'sign here' spot) while the client's name will appear on the right side (if you are real smart, when you get back you ID back from the DOL you will print out and put in a spot you wont forgot.

I'm not sure either. A safe harbor is a form of QNEC or QMAC, and the regs clearly indicate you have up until 12 months to deposit them. Under EPCRS to correct a failed test you can make a QNEC and that counts against the 415 limit for the plan year it was needed and not the year it was deposited (otherwise it would be impossible to give someone who might have quit a QNEC) so I don't think (and I could easily be wrong) that 415 is a problem. as for deductibility, that might be a different issue.

is that assuming one of the key ees deferred at least 3% (or will receive a profit sharing contribution)?

under those conditions, the employer/sponsor is suppose to sign a hard copy. you are permitted to 'electronically' sign on their behalf, but you must attach a copy of the 5500SF as well. this leaves a signature out there for the world to see, so there is some concern over that. you should also obtain some type of signed documentation form the client that you indeed do have permission to be signing electronically. plenty of discussion on this in an earlier thread. just take a look.

actually, highly likely. 100 points for Lippy for noticing it! I'd delete the post, but this is a good example of stuff to look for.. note the individual provides a .com website, a quick look on the internet reveals this to be one of those pharmacutical companies you can't stand getting e-mails from. a search of the person's profiles reveals 3 posts. looked at another and the person's response was just as cryptic.

Let's not say anything changed and make life easier. I know you have the ERISA Outline Book, Chapter 7, Section IX Part C.1.c. discusses this issue. Take a look, I think I saw a copy sitting in the corner of that round room. oh no. Reisch has similar comment at http://www.reish.com/publications/article_...m?ARTICLEID=244 Participant Loans Many participants may have outstanding loans at the time of a 401(k) plan termination. Any outstanding loans that exist may be accepted as part of the rollover if the distribution otherwise meets the requirements for an eligible rollover, and the plan provisions and loan terms allow for the rollover. Each participant with a loan being rolled over should execute an acknowledgment that the acquiring law firm will be substituted as the obligee on the loans. A transfer of a note, which is part of an eligible rollover distribution, will not be considered a renegotiation or revision of the loan, since the substantive terms do not change. While the loan must be repaid within its original term, the repayment schedule can be revised to accommodate the acquiring law firm's payroll process without causing any tax consequences. (See Private Letter Ruling 9729042 and Code §§ 72(p) and 402(a)).

the precautionary note is that In the case of self-employed individuals (i.e., sole proprietorships or partnerships), the requirements of 1.401(k)-1(a)(6) continue to apply, and the allocation method should not be such that a cash or deferred election is created for a self-employed individual as a result of application of the allocation method.) in other words, if the plan was audited and you had an agent who got up on the wrong side of the bed, it could be argued you have a disguised CODA for an HCE. Its a tough thing to prove either way. I believe at ASPPA Conferences the IRS response was "We would know it if we see it"

FT Williams has a report that indicates whether a 5500 has been accepted and the date. One plan was accepted the other day, just for the heck I tried the DOL website (you can enter EIN, plan name or whatever, http://www.efast.dol.gov/portal/app/dissem...?execution=e1s1 yes indeed, its already out there for full public viewing.

same deal. each 'plan' is separate. what is consistent is that what you do for coverage is the same as you do for nondiscrim. and you wouldn't otherwise exclude ADP and not ACP and then try to 'shift' contributions

you may want to read the following (this is just that last part) found at http://rsmmcgladrey.typepad.com/esop/2007/...esting_req.html So to summarize, you have the following decisions to be made with respect to your vesting schedule (assuming your current vesting schedule is not rapid enough): Which vesting schedule will you use? If you are a leveraged ESOP, do you want to delay the change in vesting schedules as allowed under the exception outlined above? Do you want to apply the new vesting schedule to all balances or only to amounts accumulating in post – 2006 plan years? Do you want to limit the application of the new vesting schedule to participants who have an hour of service in the first plan year beginning after December 31, 2006? Your plan document does not need to be amended to reflect these decisions until the end of the 2009 plan year. Nevertheless, you may choose to adopt an amendment now to record the decisions made and you may also want to communicate the new vesting provisions to your employees at this time.

there is no requirement that coverage/nondiscrim for ADP, ACP and nonelective be done on the same basis. think of each of these items being a seperate 'plan'. however, one you sart looking at each 'plan', the testing has to be the same -you can not aggregate prior year test with a current year test, etc

ok, finished it up as best I could over the weekend I'll dedicate this one to those whose grumbling about e-file 2 (in particular verse 3) inspired me take a look at the 'good old days' 10 year cliffs, class year plans, and the rule of 45, Five to fifteen year vesting really made those plans alive Laid off just before you’d vest, but that’s the way it goes- Ah, do you remember those? No EGTRRA, no USERRA and what the heck is GUST? No top heavy requirement was placed upon the Trust No self-direction, default funds and why disclose the fees Ah do you remember these? Fifty-five hundred C or R, there’s No e-file 2 hand filled forms sent in by mail, that’s all that we need do And we filled out many forms, the Schedule Ts and Ps Ah do you remember these? HCEs and the 1/3rd rule, the multiple use test The PIA offset plans, now they seemed like the best No Cash Balance, no DB-K, nothing like an E-Bar Can you remember back that far? No catch up limits, Roth deferrals, EPCRS Things were easier back then, but now we’ve got a mess Segment rates and funding yield curves have added to our woes Ah, if we could forget those! SIMPLE plans, and SHNECS and SHMACs, New Comparability Way back when those things were not part of reality no nondisrim, no 410-b, we didn’t dream of GATT, ah do you remember that? Combo plans had 415-e rules to think about the 1.25 multiplier was often left in doubt and owners could not take a loan, even if they did say please ah, do you remember these? 30 thou was the limit; 25 percent of pay comp reduced by deferrals, for us that was ok for us old folks, those were the rules, they were our ABCs Do we, do we remember these? Yes, we do, Ahh how we remember these!

and everyone knows he had a perfect game anyway, and people will probably remember this one more than the other ones this year.

what type of account (source) do you have it coded on Relius?

Supposedly (if true) was Galaraga's response after the ump admitted his mistake "well, nobody's perfect" now that's funny.

years ago they overturned the George Brett pine tar incident, I suppose they could always step in and do the same given the circumstances, but then where do you draw the line? as for review, it should sort of work like when food falls on the floor - if you can't make a decision in less than 30 seconds, its to close to change. ah, for no-hitters - Miller / Barber of Baltimore vs Tigers in 1967, 2 pitchers combined for a no-hitter and still lost 2-1

having watched it live thanks to the cut in by ESPN, it hurt to watch the thing unfold, almost as if it was in slow motion. I'll give the ump credit for admitting his mistake, I'll give Galaraga credit for his immediate reaction at the call. that smile was wonderful. ah, maybe now they will use instant replay for other situations. it should be a no brainer, if you have to look at a file over and over like they do in the NFL, then don't change the call, but if you can look at it right away and know immediately, then switch things.

to the tune "Do you remember these" (Statler Bros) - ok, maybe nobody remembers this one, but I was inspired a bit by someone groaning about e-filing, so I 'dedicate' part of the 3rd verse to him! a music file is enclosed - to make the file work you have to rename from .rpt to .midi, but I have to beat Mr. Baker's system of uploading attachments somehow - at least I think this will work you probably have to be catch-up eligible to even understand this one. well, ok, I only had time to come up with 3 verses so far on such short notice, maybe someday I'll dream of more. 10 year cliffs, class year plans, and the rule of 45, Five to fifteen year vesting really made those plans alive Laid off just before you’d vest, but that’s the way it goes- Ah, do you remember those? No EGTRRA, no USERRA and what the heck is GUST? No top heavy requirement was placed upon the Trust No self-direction, default funds and why disclose the fees Ah do you remember these Fifty-five hundred C or R, there’s No e-file 2 hand filled forms sent in by mail, that’s all that we need do no nondisrim, no 410-b, we didn’t dream of GATT, ah do you remember that?

After my initial misgivings, I think I would agree, the filings seem to be going real easy, we switched to FT William as well and haven't had the problems I understand other have experienced so maybe that's the difference. eliminating sending the form to the client, getting it back, sending it certified to the DOL a lot less cumbersome, but then what do I know. (and this comes from one still living in the 'dark ages' as far as using many of the electronic 'toys' we have today.) but thank you Mr Cline, you have given me an inspiration to try to churn out another pension song about how things were so much better back when... but I'll post that on the humor board

db froze in 2008. combo plan, is the minimum still 5% in the DC plan (except for new employees who aren't participants in the DB?

there are other factors that could trigger 100%vesting partial termination normal retirement possibly early retirement...