Tom Poje

this is the female table. by the way, this is from the latest pension bill, so there is method to the madness Mortality: Generally, plans will be required to use the RP2000 mortality table, which will be revised every 10 years. Plans may petition the IRS to use plan-specific mortality pursuant to certain restrictions and demonstrations. not sure exactly when all this will have to be used, but hopefully these table will save some searching. I pulled (and created) these from the Societies of Actuaries website http://library.soa.org:8080/xtbml/jsp/index.jsp

the enclosed is the rp-2000 Male table ok, at least it worked at this end importing into the system under tables, mortality

it is my understanding that you can generally rely on proposed regs until they are finalized.

my understanding would be yes. A Roth deferral is still a deferral. It is almost like a special investment choice, one in which you pay taxes up front. therefore, under normal conditions it would be included in the ADP test. the safe harbor rules simply eliminate the need for the ADP test. Interesting, if plan is not safe harbor, and plan fails, the gains on Roth would be taxed under the proposed regs. so unless they were the only deferrals for the year, I am not sure why the HCE would use these. even more interesting, there is a provision that excess aggregate contributions are not includable in gross income to the extent it represents a distribution of designated roth contributions. I guess that implies you have shifted them from the ADP test to the ACP test. I am not sure how that could happen otherwise. so plan passes ADP, fails ACP. deferrals are shifted to the ACP test. Plan still fails, so Roth deferrals are returned?????? Another thing I find interesting, after tax contributions are used in the ACP test. But now, if designated as Roth they are used in the ADP. and the tax consequences, since no taxes eventually on the gains are a lot better.

what would be the difference between that and the example 3 and 4 of 1.401(a)(4)-8(b)(1)(vii) I think that is the correct cite, but there are so many (vi) and (iv) that I get mixed up. oh what the heck, just turn to that section and you will see examples of using age. If done properly one can actually avoid the gateway minimum. In some ways, a real fancy age weighted plan

no, not quite what I said. I said the combination of the two (basic plus discretionary) would be 166.6% on the first three. what you dont do is the basic, and then tack on the discretionary only on amounts 5% deferred. that you can not do. (or 50 cents on amounts above 3% because one you go above 6% of comp you would have to test)

what you want would be the basic match 100% of first 3% and 50% of next 2% then you want a discretionary match, lets say 66.6% of the first 6% the net effect would be (unless I messed up somewhere) 166.6% on the first 3% 116.6% on the next 2% and 66.6% on the next 1% 0% on any deferrals above 6% this will yield more than 4% of comp overall, but that limit is on the discretionary piece only.

for example, the discretionary could be 66.6% of the first 6% deferred. This would result in the discretionary match being limited to 4% of compensation. the discretionary match can use a vesting schedule, but you can not have an hours requirement or last provision.

KateSmith: I really don't know what happens. under the new 401k regs, SHNEC are referred as QNECs (1.401(k)-3(e)) but we know QNECs are not permitted 12 months after the end of the year. On the other hand, Notice 98-52 says SHNECs wont be used as QNECs for any plan year. go and figure. Since the SHNECs are required (rather than allocating a QNEC because of testing failure) your plan would have failure to follow the terms of the document, so I would say you simply have to make the SHNEC. since it is due 12 months after plan year, I would think you would accrue interest from 12/31/2004 on. 1.401(m)-2(a)(4) (while this applies to the ACP test, a similar rule exists for the ADP test, I am too lazy to hunt through and find it since I found this section already) says if the contributions are over 12 months old then they aren't used in the ADP/ACP test but rather in the 401(a)(4) test. I am guessing this means: plan is safe harbor, so you get free ride on ADP test (or maybe a better way of putting it, you run the test, it doesn't matter what the numbers are you pass) contribution is late late late. you still get the free ride, but now you have to run an a(4) test, which should be a moot point since all receive 3% anyway. again, all that is a big guess.

I am assuming that the schedule P is folded in the shape of the Pogge Fish.

They force me to....er...the let me give a talk from time to time.

at the IRS Q and A (I think it was 2003, fall ASPPA conference) the IRS said the solution was to simply provide the notice. If it involves the SHNEC probably no further steps are needed. Since all get the SHNEC it generally should not effect whether the person defers or not. If the safe harbor was a SHMAC even the iRS didn't offer a solution - possibly a make up deferral for those that didn't defer at the average rate of deferrals in addition to the SHMAC. In either case, there was not a 100% guarantee either would work under EPCRS, but that disclaimer goes with any IRS comments at any conference.

I hit on this one in my ASPPA talk last year, and am going to repeat the talk again this year. you have a document. it says the plan is safe harbor. Therefore, if no safe harbor was provided, you have a failure to follow the terms of the document. it is not a matter of simply running an ADP test. in fact, the new 401k regs state you the preamble to the final 401(k) regs makes it real clear Preamble to the final regs A PLAN that uses the safe harbor method MUST specify whether the safe harbor contribution will be the SHNEC or the SHMAC and is NOT permitted to provide that ADP testing will be used if the requirements for the safe harbor are not satisfied. The safe harbors are intended to provide ees with a minimum threshold in benefits in exchange for easier compliance for the plan sponsor. It would be inconsistent with this approach to providing benefits to allow an employer to deliver smaller benefits to NHCEs and revert to testing. the only 'out' is if the plan used the 'maybe we will do safe harbor', but your question implies this is not the case. now, when is the contribution due? notice 98-52 VII A .....no later than 12 mpnths after the end of the plan year. if your plan year end was 12/31/2004 then there is no self correction yet. you still have time. the self correction would be the return of the distributions that were made that should not have been made. now,if the safe harbor was over a year late, then I think you still have to make them. but at that point I dont think there are clear guidlines. Since you are not allowed to use deferrals in the ADP test that are deposited a year late, I would guess the same rule applies. The free ride on the ADP test is botched, so you would have to run a test. the safe harbor would have to be used in the nondiscrim test, but since all received 3% I wouldn't think that would be a problem testing. all of this is a big guess.

12 Genre: Drama / Comedy (more) Tagline: Growing up has nothing to do with age. 57 Genre: Comedy / Drama / Romance (more) Tagline: It's Monday morning, So and so has woken up with a headache, a hangover and her boss ........... hopefully that will be it????

Mike: I am going to work you into my ASPPA presentation yet - you DB nut.

well, based on the CPI numbers for Jun/Jul/Aug I have the 'exact' comp limit at 219,800 and the DC 415 limit at 43,976. there is still one month to go, but based on that, it looks like we could be at 220,000 for comp and 44,000 for the annual addition in 2006. (unless there is something wrong with the spreadsheet I have) Official numbers usually out by end of October.

why not just throw 1.401(k)-3(e)(2) of the final 401(k) regs at them. it is real clear you can do this. the one exception being the sucessor plan rule - you did not indicate if the 'need for a safe harbor 401k' was because they recently terminated a 401k plan that was always failing.

assuming the plan would have to meet the gateway minimum of 5%, then the overall effect is negligible. Any ee up to age 54 (or thereabouts, I dont recall the exact age) would recive a 2% ps contribution. The EBAR for age 54(?) at 8.5% int assumption, 1983 IAF will be .65 which is the maximum disparity. Therefore, the only ees who wouldn't get the max disparity would be over age 54 (though they still get some)- and their EBARs are generally so small that you wouldn't use them for rate group testing anyway.

forfeitures are used to pay plan expenses. is the penalty tax considered a plan expense for this purpose?

#4 Trivia: XXXXXXXXXXX did not learn the lyrics to "Bohemian Rhapsody" prior to filming the scene where everyone is singing along to it, and was reportedly displeased with the take of that scene used in the film because he was obviously not singing, just moving his mouth in vague relation to the lyrics #5 This thing spoofs everything, Beach Boy's songs, spy pictures, war movies, westerns, and even Elvis is not safe. It's ridiculous, outrageous, hilarious, and all in the name of good fun. The spit gag has to be my favorite bit. You've seen it in countless movies: the hero is being verbally accosted by the villain and he spits in his face. This time, however, the hero is on the other side of the room. Other memorable jokes include the skeet songs, the anal intruder, the "cow" scenes, and the backwards bit with XXXXXXXXXX.

pbarrett: you did not provide enough info in regards to your formula. Corbel documents (as well as others I am sure) could have formulas written in different ways. The most limiting would be 'super integrated' and if you had that you would need to amend to get a more traditional formula. But if you had a class formula (non integrated) then there is nothing to prevent you from testing on an allocation basis, thus you could give everyone the same % of pay (or even a little higher % to the owner and impute disparity) for some unknown reason everyone thinks you have to test by converting contributions to benefits (hence cross-testing).

you could also have a points plan. I have seen 1 of these in my life. e.g. X points for each $200 of comp Y points for each year of service I thought you could also have Z points for each age, but I don't see that in the Corbel prototype. .................. an age weighted plan, while cross tested, usually passes testing since all ees have the same e-bar (unless someone is past NRD) or more than 30% of the ees receive 0 due to last day rule or hours requirement. there is no gateway minimum in an age weighted plan.

#39 one of those listed as starring in the movie Blake Lindsley as Girl with Cigar Genre: Comedy / Drama (more) Tagline: cocktails first. questions later

hey, you movie guys are gonna have to provide clues. I would have to look up the movie on google and then figure a clue. I'll let the experts provides the help.

along with injuries to 3 offensive linemen plus the running back. But I already asked you earlier which 2 games they would lose that they should win.