Tom Poje

the new regs did not get rid of or change the current safe harbor 401k plan rules. they did add a new type of plan, safe harbor automatic enrollment (not until 1/1/2008). that is the type of plan that needs default investment.. by the way, your safe harbor notice MUST now include vesting and distribution from the plan. no more reference to the SPD

here is the DOL's website calculator http://www.askebsa.dol.gov/vfcpcalculator/

do you mean that the software only has room for 10 (because the software didn't expect anyone to have more than 10)?

I read VIII F 3 of Notice 98-52 (and now in the regs as 1.401(m)-2(a)(5)(iv) to say you have 2 choices. Test all match or exclude match does not exceed 4% of comp for the ACP test. ADP test is safe harbor so no test.

ZERO - number of runs scored by Yankees in the 3rd game of the playoffs ZERO - number of runners advance by the Yanks in the same game ZERO - number of World Series won by the Yankees in the 21st century. ZERO - oh wait - A-Fraud did get a hit afterall. gotta love those results. especially for a payroll over 200 Million.

21 movies to solve during work time...I mean over the week end. no hidden people, just explosions.

I tried to google and found the following http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?na...leA&show=10 which seems to have everything

employees who could have been excluded from the plan if the plan enforced the maximum statutory requirements (age 21/1 year service) can be tested separately. (not excluded from testing) HCEs it is your choice whether to test separately or not. the only issue is what 'entry date' do you use for the exclusion. At conferences IRS official have leaned toward 1st day of plan year or 6 months after 1 year svc/age 21, which would correspond to the code. thus in a calendar year plan an ee hired 3/1/2005, even though he entered immediately could have been excluded from the plan as late as 9/1/2006. thus, in 2006 if he quit 8/20/06 he never would have entered and therefore would be tested in the otherwise excludable group.

no. they must be QMACs, as opposed to a match that is 100% vested. one difference between the 2 would be distributions restrictions on the QMAc that aren't on the match

at the bottom of the main board it says today's birthday is Blinky (age 14). sounds 'fishy' to me.

I don't think I have seen anything in regards to Roth and the average benefits percentage test, though this may be as close as you will come. logically it would make sense to include in the avg ben % test from the IRS website http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=152956,00.html FAQs regarding Designated Roth Accounts Are my designated Roth contributions excluded from the 401(k) plan annual nondiscrimination testing? No, designated Roth contributions are treated THE SAME AS pre-tax elective contributions when performing annual nondiscrimination testing. (emphasis mine)

this is the spreadsheet I have been using to 'estimate' what it is coming. It requires the user to enter the monthly CPI-U fields. Obviously we dont know Sept yet. I am not 100% sure on the numbers for next year as EGTRRA changed some stuff, but I believe you have to compare the 2006 values to the 2005 values (If I understand things correctly) I won't know for sure until they release the official numbers in a few weeks.

As I have to present this in an ASPPA talk very shortly, I can pull the following from the Powerpoint: the hardship restriction was found in No hardships permitted on safe harbor contributions Notice 98-52 IV.H the cross refernce in the code is as follows: No ADP test if [401(k)-(12)(E) references 401(k)(2) which applies to deferrals] All eligible NHCEs receive No hours requirement No last day rule permitted 100 % vesting Withdrawal Requirements

no no no. if the document has safe harbor language, the plan is safe harbor. end discussion. the document says the 3% will be provided. the IRS has said this at a number of conferences. If the notice is not provided, you have an opeartional problem. At similar conferences they have expressed an opinion that it it probbaly self correctable by issuing a notice, even if it is late. if it involves a match, they have not offered any real guidelines. now, the final 401k regs have made it real clear, you can offer the 3% nonelective on a year to year basis. issue a notice 30 days before plan year begin that you might go safe harbor. 30 days before plan year issue another notice saying whether you actually will provide a 3% AND then amend the plan for the CURRENT YEAR only (if that is what is desired) providing such. 1.401(k)-2(f) now, exactly what is suppose to be in this amendment I am not 100% sure of. based on the regs, plan is supposed to already be set to current year testing.

I think that is possible as long as there is also a provision that someone 1000 hours in the 12 month period is also eligible. (thus you cant keep out someone who works 800 hours in the first 6 months and 800 hours in the next 6 months.)

This is not the American League with a designated HCE rule. if an individual who by comp is ranked in the top 20% also quits then you will have a lesser number of HCEs. lets go even further. suppose a calendar year plan has a 1 year wait. a doctor is hired 8/1 and makes 200,000. he could easily be an HCE, but ineligible the following year. he would not be 'replaced' by another lesser paid individual making more than the indexed dollar amount.

you still have to be careful. just because a document allows for QNECs does not mean it allows bottom up qnec. the language is pretty specific. most documents simply provide a qnec to all nhces across the board.

for plan years beginning 1/1/2006 it is next to impossible to run what would be called a bottom up QNEC - you would never meet the guidelines for QNECs. for 2005 it is still possible providing (at the minimum): document has language for such an allocation you are not putting into practice other new features of the new regs and applying to the 2005 plan year. not sure why one would do that but what the heck. (and anything else I may have forgotten)

please verify, I think you make it clear that deferrals weren't allowed to start until 9/1. but that does not mean that is the effective date of the plan. the plan could have an effective of 1/1. That makes a big differnce.

not bad. I think there are 6 left to guess...er solve 4, 8, 10, 13, 15, 26

I can not derive such conclusion that plans entry dates have a bearing. 1.410(b)-6(b)(3) clearly states employees who would be excludable but for the fact the plan does not apply the greatest permissible age and service conditions may be treated as excludable employees ['otherwise excludable'] 410(a)(1)(A) clearly states this is age 21/1 year of service, and 410(a)(4) adds 'Time of participation' being earlier of first day of plan year or 6 months after satisfying the requirements. my plain reading says I could have excluded people (e.g. hired 3/3, so 18 months later = 9/3 following year) - hence the idea of greatest permissible age and service conditions. Q12 at the 2004 ASPPA conference specifically asked if the employer must use the plans entry dates or the maximum permissible under 410(a)(4). the informal response was maximum entry dates are permissible. similar response have been given at other conferences.

it is not really '18 month'. the maximum entry entry dates are earlier of 1st day of the plan year 6 months after meeting eligibility. code sec 410(a)(4) thus, someone hired 9/1/04 would have to enter 1/1/06 of a calendar year plan not 18 months after 9/1. or put another way, an ee hired in the second half of the plan year would enter the first day of the plan year. an ee hired in the first half of the plan year would wait 18 months. the IRS has promised clarification on this, but has repeadetly at ASPPA conference that you (should) ignore a plan's entry dates and follow these guidelines when applying the rules for 'otherwise excludables'. of course comments at conference don't necessarily reflect an actual position, but I think in this case they are a good rule to follow.

the test, though difficult, is easier than the quizzes I post. I passed many moons ago, back when you were penalized for incorrect answers, so I am afraid I can't help there. However, if you do plan to attend the ASPPA Annual confernce, the cram sessions really help. (well at least the ones for C-3 and C-4 were helpful enough to get me by)

ok, so a vesting schedule change has to be offered to people who have 3 years of service. but those people are already 100% vested. so it probably becomes a moot point in this particular case.

while looking for something else, tripped across Q and A 2003 ASPPA conference #57 same question was asked. answer- there is no penalty, but DOL could remove the trustee. then it was added, as a result, if plan was subject to small plan audit then normal penalty rules would apply.