Tom Poje

these are a mixed lot (not westerns) one of them, for example is an Alfred Hitchcock 1. ZIT IN NECK AE 2. NINE GREW NO OTHER FIT 3. EXIT OLD HEART DREAM 4. HELLO NEAT PAW 5. I WON REWARD 6. RARE KIDS FOOL HEARTS 7. SIR PACK US JARS 8. BUS GETS SHORT 9. THINK WASH ON DAMPER SHEET 10. MT PONY WATER 11. IN MATH THEN 12. GOD NORTH LIFERS

Howdy pardners. go to the front of the brandin' iron class if you can unscramble all of these. Unscramble these words and phrases to find the names of ten renowned Western movies. 1. ETHYL HAD GOOD BUG TEETH 2. LOVE RAIDS 3. ENTRANCING MIME YELL'D 4. A HIP FRIEND'S LIGHT 5. BOOM TENTS 6. WE JUST HATE SEA WOOLLY 7. TIGER RUT 8. VENT IF GAME SCENE THIN 9. DRAIN GOER 10. A THIN GRIEVIN'

the quarterly timing is required by 1.401(k)-3(c )(5)(ii). I have never seen what happens if they are late. so, I see 2 possibilities - you have to test (a wild guess), or you have to make up with interest from the date the quarter ends. (maybe that makes more sense)

my wild guess would be (of course) the contributions are required the fact they are late per the quarterly payroll requirements implies to me that you would have to perform ADP testing - the lateness takes them out of being 'safe harbor', or makes them tainted or whatever. just guessing.

a participant is considered benefiting if they receive either an allocation of contributions or forfeitures, so yes, unless I suppose you allocate forfeitures based on account balances. I have never actually heard someone do that, because that entails nondiscrimination testing, but I think it is still possible to have that as an option. in fact, forfeitures can ruin a safe harbor plan that would normally be considered 'top heavy free'

well, remember you are sort of treating things like a db, therefore you have to use at the minimum a hi 3 average or something like that to determine the e-bar.

other factors: your login name implies California. I would imagine the cost of living is a lot more there. therefore, how do you compare salaries? as to no room for advancement, well.... passing a few tests did get me the initials after the name. being in the right place at the right time has led to speaking possibilities, articles, etc. was it worth it financially? probably not with the deadlines I have to meet sometimes, but I do at least like those extra things I have been involved in. And someday I will move back a little farther north so I can enjoy tulips, daffodils, cherry trees, etc, and all this extra stuff I have done should make it easier to find a job for a nut case like myself.

well then, hope to at least see you there. not into gambling, so dinner (even if it is simply swapping horror pension stories) sound a lot more interesting.

I'd go out on a limb and say neither, sort of, if that makes any sense. one only has so much (or so little) time) topic for the Fall conference is safe harbor (basically repeat of last year's talk, though some minor modifications) The topic for the Western Conference is going to be more on Cross testing things like the gateway, including db/dc combo and how to calculate if you have satisfied the gateway then how to calculate an e-bar, which will lead into a discussion (or at least hopefully an observation of taking a quick look at census data data to see if you have a real good candidate or at least potential for a cross tested plan) and finally some comments on why interest rates are chosen, mortality table to use, etc. it is not a session presenting 'bizarre examples' and saying 'you can do this, or this'. those examples usually fall apart if one of the NHCEs quit. well, I am always open to sitting down over dinner and hashing out ideas as well. catch-ups would probably make a real good talk, but I would be clueless if it was non calendar. those frighten me.

If I understand the regs correctly and have somehow managed to identify the cites correctly I have: 1.414(v)-1(d)(2) ADP numbers are calculated not including those items described in (b)(1)(i) or (ii) 1.414(v)-1(b)(i) statutory limit such as Excess deferrals or 415 limit 1.414(v)-1(b)(ii) other employer imposed limits 1.414(v)-1(b)(iii) is the ADP limit which, as noted above was not mentioned in 1(d)(2) the examples (in particular begining with #4) dont refer to 415 limit, but only have excess deferrals. excess deferrals are netted out as catch up. then adp test is run. additional deferrals are netted out as catch up for failing adp test.

or put another way, just because there is no prior 'plan year', does not mean there is no look back year. you simply look back at comps. and they must be 12 months. no annualizing or any fun stuff.

many moons ago. to test on accrued to date you would need an average comp. they did just recently add historical comps to the system a year or so ago, so I suppose it would be possible - but in the past that simply didn't exist. you also need historical gains - I doubt many plans on the system have that value. One could, if I understand things correctly, use a fresh start date - but with gateway minimum requirements and stuff, I'm not sure if it is worth the extra time and effort to base stuff on a fresh start date. If I read the stuff for the latest update they did just program the system to test DB on an allocation basis, and do some combo work with cash balance plans. of course, I think Andy can can do those things in his head, unlike the rest of us!

if you have an existing 401k, you can never switch at any point during the year. without looking up the cite, you have things like 30 day notice, requirement safe harbor be 12 months (unless first year of safe harbor - then it has to be at least 3 months, but that only applies to a new plan - you don't have that) etc.

I searched a bit on the ASPPA board and finally found the item you desired. study well, pass, and replace idiots like me. note: no longer required reading from Erisa Outline Book. there is now a dc-3 study book itself. http://www.asppa.org/pdf_files/educationpd...c3_syllabus.pdf

ok, here is another use at your risk this report should list anyone with deferrals, match or profit sharing. it will indicate 415 comp and allocation comp, and show % of pay based on allocation comp. it will inicate ees who have different comp with **. e.g. ees enter midyear. will also inicate hours if < 1000 and status if terminated. thus some ees may show with deferrals but 0 profit sharing due to last day or hours requirement. DOH is also indicated if 1 year before plan year begin. for example plan may have immediate eligibility for deferrals but 1 year wait for profit sharing. these ees will show with 0 profit sharing if they deferred. sort by division, so if you run cross tested at least people are in groups. well I'm sure it can't catch everything, but worked well on the last plan I ran.

this might boil down to a misunderstanding on what was said. you can certainly test using accrued to date on a DC plan, however, that option is not available on the Relius system for DC plans . (It hasn't been programmed) hopefully that is what they meant.

confused on the following statement "If the employee is excluded from the plan then there is no counting for 410b" if the ee is excluded because of failure due to statutory permissible exclusion (age 21/1 yr service) but once they meet those requirements (and the next entry date) they have to be included- either as benefitting or not benefitting. ok, in some case you can exclude terminees with less than 500 hours, but only if they are actual participants and do not accrue in the year of termination.

lets see, in the past when NHCEs quit vesting was never increased. this year, an HCE quits and vesting is increased, which amounts to 40,000 to the individual. despite the fact there are a few NHCEs who quit this year, it smells bad. in fact, why would the question even be posed if it didn't? of course, that is my opinion only. supposedly if you receive a determination letter then the IRS has given its approval. so, if you were to request one of those, citing the facts and circumstances you mentioned, what do you think the IRS response would be?

Can my plan offer only designated Roth contributions? No, in order to provide for designated Roth contributions, a 401(k) or 403(b) plan must also offer pre-tax elective contributions .............. Can I make both pre-tax elective and designated Roth contributions in the same year? Yes, you can make contributions to both a designated Roth account and a traditional, pre-tax account in the same year in any proportion you choose. However, the combined amount contributed in any one year is limited by the 402(g) limit - $15,000 for 2006 (plus an additional $5,000 in catch-up contributions if age 50 or older). ...................... These are from the IRS Q and A on Roth http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=152956,00.html those seem pretty clear. hope that helps ................ A blessed and Happy Easter to all!!!

I don't know. ask Sal - I am only referencing from his book. he makes note of 7503 but indicates that is only used in limited cases.

the ERISA Outline book 11.171 (2006 edition) implies that corrective contributions made on Monday March 17,2003 would 'probably' be deemed late so it doesn't sound good. the issue is not adressed in regards to excess deferrals. since you do not get an extension on extension deferreals (even if you extend your personally taxes) I would say it does not sound good.

from your quotes, I dont see anything that says allocate to those with account balances only. by allocating the QNEC you are creating an account balance.

Jack Benny was always 39.

Andy what about someone who is age 40 during the year? ........................... by the way, putting on the finishing touches on the latest 401(k) song. this year's version is a Harry Chapin piece.

I'm not sure you are going wrong. as I said I think the answer is unclear. I view a(4) test as saying I must do the test twice, one with and one without QNECs. ERISA Outline Book simply says you have to meet the gateway test as a PRECONDITION to demonstrating satisfaction of a(4). ok I check to make sure all received the gateway. I then run my a(4) test, in this case twice. The other argument would be, I need to run an a(4) test. In this case twice. One with QNEC and one without. Before I run the test without QNEC I need to check for the gateway. I don't see it that way, but I can understand looking at it that way. (thank heavens I don't have anything that allocates a QNEC and so I don't have to worry about this particular situation)