Tom Poje

well, I have worked the shoe phone into the presentation. Guess I will have to modify my talk in Washington in the fall to include the 'Get Smart' stuff.

I only watched 'C' a few times, but there was I guy I worked with way back when (pre-Pension days). he had gone out to Universal Studios, and was picked the day he was out there to 'demonstrate' how they made someone 'fly in the air'. nasty tune. once it gets in your head it goes on and on and on. (By the way, I am hoping there are enough 'pathetic' TVland people for my ASPPA talk in July that remember Get Smart.)

if I understand things correctly, and that is a big if, you have the following: CPI-U for July - Aug - Sept 2005 195.4 + 196.4 + 198.8 = 590.6 you would then take then values for July - Aug - Sept 2006 lets say they are 203.5 + 203.5 + 203.5 = 610.50 610.5 / 590.6 * 15000 = 15,505.42 increase is in increments of 500, so the new deferral amount would be 15,500. the CPI-U value for May was 202.5 based on last years data, chances are good the limit would increase. based on years prior to last year it will be real close. the rates are released around the middle of each month - the web site is here: I am confused. how come the cute cat picture appears on both posts? http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu you check the first box, scroll to the bottom and retrieve the data. I think there is 10 years worth of data. now, the rest of the story.... I had written an article many moons ago on how increases were determined. someone took that info and built an excel sheet which he sent me and I have been using that for a few years now - it has yet to fail, though of course since this is the first time for an adjustment to the deferral limit I might have done something wrong. By the way, based on the numbers, the 415 limit will be 45,000. what a sad pathetic numbers freak I have turned out to be.

well, its time to embaress yourself and show your age or tv viewing habits by identifying the following shows based on a line from their opening theme song. Hey, I waited until Friday so I wouldn't 'mess up' anyone's week. ha. ok, ok. even I knew and watched a bunch of these. good luck. #1: "Darlin', I love you but" #2: "So go ahead, enjoy the view" #3: "Enjoying each other's joys" #4: "California is the place you wanna be!" #5: "If you find some girl to love" #6: "We've finally got a piece of the pie!" #7: "Songs that made the Hit Parade" #8: "And suddenly make it all seem worthwhile" #9: "And oh what heights we'll hit" #10: "And those with too ready a trigger" #11: "They're altogether ooky" #12: "Lots of curves, you bet!" #13: "It sure isn't you!" #14: "She may be pint sized" #15: "Keep smilin' until then" #16: "When the country was fallin' apart, Betsy Ross got it all sewed up!" #17: "Daughter Judy" #18: "Let's ride with the family down the street" #19: "A hot dog makes her lose control!" #20: "Brave, courageous and bold" #21: "Tossed salads and scrambled eggs" #22: "The youngest one in curls" #23: "Tale of a fateful trip" #24: "Watch out for that tree!" #25: "Unless of course"

you too?

there is the officer test - which is 10% of number of employees or 3 (if greater). max # of officers = 50. always round up. If I recall, it is not 10% of eligible participants, but 10% of non excludable bodies (e.g. someone who worked 6 months might be ineligible for the plan but would be counted) regardless, in your case, if you have at least 3 officers making more than 130,000 then you would have 3 key ees due to officer status. rank them by comp. but that is officer key. you still have ownership key. the ees could fall in more than 1 group.

maybe. at one conference the IRS indicated you could include profit sharing contributions made after the end of the plan year in your top heavy determination for top heavy. thus, it is entirely possible that the contribution might kick the plan out of top heavy status. brings back memories - many many years ago - back in the mid 80's, the very first plan I ever worked on in my life. the software got stuck in a loop trying to allocate an integrated contribution. first year of plan. it would get done, check top heavy. since it was top heavy, it redid the allocation. but now it looked at the numbers and determined it wasn't top heavy, so it went back to the original allocation. but then it said that made it top heavy so it just ran and ran and ran and I sat and watched wondering what the heck was going on.

Kevin: I will add the question to the Q and A's for the fall. (I have the power - no really, I am involved on the IRS Q and A committee so I can do things like that)) would your reasoning stay the same if an HCE (owner's son) had only worked only 3 months and was now able to get the safe harbor instead of waiting 6 months?

you went the wrong way on #16. just for the record. but I guess that means the puzzle is solved. as long as you had fun, dang, I didn't get a chance to take over some plans while pax worked out the puzzle. hmmmm. I will have to work on formatting another puzzle. there is one based on television theme songs that I found.

so far so good, though #16 offered 2 choices. one of those is correct. Lame Duck: my guess is "Sitting through one of my ASPPA presentations" certainly they are 'trapped in time' for the duration of the presentation because they would feel bad if they got up and walked out. and the energy level is certainly like running 'low on gas.'

what QDROPhile said was true, you should have been provided a SPD that usually explains fairly clear. If the plan is typical the following takes place - every year you work 1000 hours you receive 1 year of vesting service. You indicated you are fully vested after 5 years. probably means you are 0 vested until that point in time. you also indicated the company puts in a generous 12% of pay. lets say you make 20,000 for 5 straight years, and work 1000 hours each year. then year 1 company puts in 2400 in your name. after 5 years you would have 2400 * 5 = 12,000 plus any gains / losses. the longer you work, the more money they keep putting in. If you were to quit after 4 years you would get nothing extra because you are not 'fully vested'. (I am guessing on the vesting - they could very well have a vesting that says after 1 year you are 20%, 2 years 40%, etc - in that case after 4 years you would receive 80% of your balance.) Every year they will provide you with a statement indicating how much they put in for you, and how much gains you received.

answers all correct so far, except #29, though the one guy in the office here also had Natural Born Killers, so I looked up that movie and found the following taglines for it: The Media Made Them Superstars. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the media circus of life, they were the main attraction. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A bold new film that takes a look at a country seduced by fame, obsessed by crime and consumed by the media.

ok, so you folks have solved a couple, though I do like Santo Gold's answers. I'm still waiting for WDIK to yell at me for posting a puzzle a few days before the weekend!

it is not a document issue (unless I suppose you have some really stupid individually designed documents that state you will test plans combined) the issue you referring to is called permissive aggregation and is found in 1.410(b)-7(d). there is a reason it is called permissive.

you make perfect sense. my understand is once you go safe harbor, you are indeed on the 5 year cycle before you can switch back. I actually asked one of the Corbel document people about whether it mattered what you checked for testing since the default is 'current' year. The document software lets you select either, it will print whatever you select, but the response was that you really should select current year. the final regs also say (in regards to a plan that uses 'maybe SHNEQ') "a plan that provides for the use of the current year testing method may be amended after the first day of the plan year...no more than 30 days before plan year end ..... to adopt the safe harbor method... 1.401(k)-3(f) so I would try to make sure the document does indeed say current year testing.

ah yes, just when you thought you could get something in the office done, after a search I have found another quiz for you. I of course fail because I am not much of a movie watcher. On the other hand, I also have the answers. mean and nasty Tom at it again, forcing you to solve these things. as usual, give someone a chance to solve some of these before posting answers! Can you identify all 41 movies from the trailer (catch phrase) used to promote the film? For example: Clue: A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away... Answer: Star Wars Got it? Good! #1: Protecting the earth from the scum of the universe #2: A little pig goes a long way. #3: An adventure 65 million years in the making #4: The coast is toast #5: They're here! #6: In space no one can hear you scream #7: It was the Delta's against the rules...the rules lost! #8: The heat is on! #9: Get ready for rush hour #10: Rush hour may be over...forever. #11: You will believe. #12: His whole life was a million-to-one shot. #13: It's the story of a man, a woman and a rabbit in a triangle of trouble. #14: Where were you in '62? #15: You'll believe a man can fly! #16: We are not alone. #17: Love means never having to say you're sorry. #18: The night HE came home #19: Never give a saga an even break! #20: The ultimate trip #21: What we've got here is a failure to communicate. #22: You don't assign him to murder cases, you just turn him loose. #23: You won't know the facts until you've seen the fiction. #24: They're here to save the world. #25: They'll never get caught. They're on a mission from God. #26: In memory, love lives forever. #27: Don't give away the ending - it's the only one we have! #28: A nervous romance. #29: They're young...they're in love...and they kill people. #30: The journey is everything. #31: She was the first. #32: This is the weekend they didn't play golf. #33: This is Benjamin. He's a little worried about his future. #34: Every man dies, not every man really lives. #35: It's the story of their lives. #36: Not that it matters, but most of it is true. #37: A brutal murder. A brilliant killer. A cop who can't resist the danger. #38: All it takes is a little confidence! #39: A guy without a conscience! A dame without a heart! #40: A love caught in the fire of revolution. #41: For three men the Civil War wasn't hell. It was practice!

go to the head of the class. you are correct on all points. it does not matter how much comp someone has with a previous employer. you never annualize comp, so the fact a new employee made 60,000 for only part of the year still means he made only 60,000 for testing and for determination of HCE status, so ee is not treated as an HCE in 2007.

I would tend to agree, though I don't know if the issue of making things more lenient has ever been addressed. One possible argument is that some NHCEs were not allowed to defer for '3 months of the year' (e.g. plan was 6 months now it is only 3 months eligibility) therefore, one could possibly argue that their rate of match would be less than the HCEs, a clear violation of the safe harbor rules.

#4. you need to check the document in regards to testing. if prior year testing is specified, then you would use prior years comp and deferrals for the NHCEs. you always use current years comp and deferrals for the HCEs

you can exclude the 'otherwise excludables'. 1.401(k)-3(h)(3) . plus the last sentence of that paragraph says see 1.401(k)-1(b)(4)(vi) example 2 the plan would be subject to top heavy rules. the otherwise excludables would have to be tested for ADP but probably no HCEs anyway. what you cant do is impose a last day or hours provision to receive the match.

just trick Relius. restructuring = divisions. then when you test rate groups, select division you want, testing method (accrual or allocation) and then enter the number of HCEs, NHCEs (non benefiting non excludables) from the other division. I would print the avg ben % test (though not used since the one division would be treated as 0) - however it does give you the count of HCEs and NHCEs just to make sure you have entered the proper numbers.

ok, just what does TPF & C Forecast Mortality Table stand for? I don't need the table - that is programmed into the system, but was looking for a description to put on the relative value notice. (I'm almost positive it is not Tom Poje Failure and Catastrophe, though that might be appropriate in reference to me!)

if you make the upcoming Western Benefits Conference I will be once again performing Louis Armstrong's I see skies of blue Clouds of white The bright blessed day I’m in a 401(k) And I think to myself, what a wonderful world. (well you have to attend to get the rest of the song) will probably also do an Elvis pension song. Have done the Beach Boys Well I save my nickels and I saved my dimes <put away, save away,401>... also the Beatles 'Yesterday, 65 seemed so far away...' this fall's ASPPA conference I am planning on a version of Harry Chapin's "Cat's in the Cradle" well the plan arrived, just the other day the company put in a 4-0-1-k..... someday maybe I will finish Otis Redding "I'm sitting in a 4-0-1-k, watching the funds roll away..." well, c'mon, surely you don't expect me to post the words to all those songs do you? I'll give you Old MacDonald for free - anyone can do that one. Old Macdonald had a plan He needs an E-I-N And in this plan he has match E-I E-I-N There’s a deferral here a deferral there Here a match, there a match Everywhere a match match Old Macdonald had a plan E-I E-I-N Old Macdonald ran a scam I-O I-O-U And in this scam he stole the dough I-O I-O-U Steal a few bucks here steal a few bucks there Here a buck, there a buck Everywhere a buck buck Old Macdonald ran a scam I-O I-O-U Old MacDonald is in jail D-O D-O-L He hasn’t got a chance of bail D-O D-O-L Steal a few bucks here serve a little time there Here a year there a year The judge gave him about 20 years Old MacDonald is in jail D-O D-O-L Old MacDonald’s on parole And living in RIO He has a big fat Swiss Account RIO – R-I-O With a pretty girl here and a pretty girl there Here a grand there a grand He’s got about 500 grand Old MacDonald’s on parole And living in RIO Old MacDonald should be alarmed E-I E-I-O His former help will do him harm E-I E-I-O There’ a gunshot here and a gunshot there Here a shot there a shot Everywhere a gunshot Old MacDonald (you gotta pause at this point for the punch line) bought the farm E-I E-I-O

usually the document will say how often someone can change his deferral election. certainly one is entitled to stop. if you stopped now there is certainly nothing that I know of from preventing you from begining again in 7 months (assuming calendar year plan)

for some reason no one has quoted the regs the wording in the old regs 1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(B)(4) "the employee is prohibited....for AT LEAST 12 months..." so obviously a period longer than 12 months was permitted. the new regs 1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)(E)(2) "....at least 6 months..." as to a maximum period I have never read anything on that. we know you can't have a 2 year eligibility for deferrals, so my own personal opinion would be you couldn't go beyond that (or put another away 12 months plus next entry date seems logical. an ee taking a hardship must 'reestablish' eligibility. but that is an opinion only)