Tom Poje

I thought that rule applied to nondiscrimination testing - it is found in 1.401(a)(4) not under coverage rules. - in other words, I thought the rule said you dont have to do nondiscrim testing if you could pass 410(b) if top heavy people were treated as not benefiting. But that doesn't say anything about coverage testing itself.

my brain hurts, but I think the answer is yes and no. If different plan years you treat all the other ees as includable and not benefiting. But for average benefits % test you do average them in. note: even if plans have same plan year, you cant exclude terminees < 500 hours from the non prticpating plan cuz that rule only applies to actual participants.

ok, so there are some duplicates, but as my brother says, who really cares. this one has 72 movies to identify. for those that haven't downloaded #1, these are snapshots from different movies. the 'bodies' are missing (the clothes are still there). I guess you would describe it as The invisible man effect. Besides, what else are you going to do on the weekend besieds watch football. (well, ok ladies, but then 'WDIK' - I never married - oh wait, I don't watch that much football either - never mind)

you have an HCE benefiting under the nonelective portion, and no NHCEs benefiting therefore you would fail coverage as well. so yes, you would have to provide a contribution to at least some of the nhces. I guess conceivably you could say plan fails coverage, therefore you could put in a corrective amendment and provide a contribution to a sufficent number of ees to pass all testing. depends on if you have other HCEs who deferred. (If I understand your question properly)

1.410(b)-7(d) says that an employer MAY designate 2 or more plans as a single plan. (permissive aggregation.) it then further states if treated as a single plan, it must do so for all purposes of 401(a)(4) and 410(b). I guess I should add, plans must have the same plan year

no, I don't have a password. I have the sheet the movie nut filled out, so I have to look at that for answers. then for my brother I looked up the movie on the internet and found some clues. the guy in the office was stumped on one and called his friend who is also into movies. he described one picture as 'looks like Harrison Ford from the back, but he would never wear a pink shirt' and his friend suggested trying a movie with Hugh Grant. what a guess.

hey, I just work here. I don't watch movies that much so I could only guess 1 or 2 of them. or as you would say, WDIK. (But there is a movie nut in the office who solved them all so I have the answers) plus my brother had all but a few, so I had to give him clues e.g. #15 The lonely sound of a buoy bell in the distance. Water slapping against a smooth, flat surface in rhythm. The creaking of wood. Off in the very far distance, one can make out the sound of sirens. SUDDENLY, a single match ignites and invades the darkness. It quivers for a moment. A dimly lit hand brings the rest of the pack to the match. A plume of yellow-white flame flares and illuminates the battered face of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, age forty. His salty-gray hair is wet and matted. His face drips with water or sweat. A large cut runs the length of his face from the corner of his eye to his chin. It bleeds freely. An un-lit cigarette hangs in the corner of his mouth. ....................... But if you like, I will then post quiz #2, which has a number of repeats, but what the heck.

before giving all the answer away, please give others a chance to solve as well

particiapnt signs election form for lump sum (<$2200) particpant then dies over labor day before a check is actually cut. now what? make check out to wife?

Lori: I feel the same way about Al Kaline, who played for the Tigers back in the 50's and 60's. He was the first member of his family to graduate from high school. And went straight to baseball - no minor league or college baseball. won the batting title at age 20. one year he was offered the 'enormous' sum of $100,000 and turned it down saying he wasn't good enough. one of those rare players who only played for 1 team. I suppose he holds the dubious record of being the only player with 3000 hits yet a career batting avg under .300 (only .297). He was 1 shy of 400 homers, and 3 shy of 500 doubles.

so Mike, how bad will the Wolverines beat Notre Dame this weekend?

too late if anyone has worked 500 hours, because if they quit you would have to follow the terms of the document and give them the current formula. they have accrued the benefit for the year and you can't change it.

Yankees = 205 million Tampa Bay = 38 million so far this year, Tampa Bay leads the series 10 - 4 3.8 million / win vs 51.25 million / win gotta love those numbers! plus Tampa Bay has prevented the Yanks from being in first. gotta love that as well.

well, yes and no. if the employer is making booka-bucks, then he will max out early in the year. therefore his money will be invested over a longer period of time instead of after the end of the year. unless he is invested in poorly performing investments it is a big advantage to him.

then it certainly is possible, though that would not be front loading, that sounds like a payroll by payroll basis. that avoids the issue of putting in too much for someone whose comp may be less than the previous year.

I don't believe you can do that, the reasons you cite sound pretty good. you could certainly do things on a payroll basis if the safe harbor was a match, but there is nothing indicating you could do this for a SHNEC. the fact that allocating a match on a payroll basis would seem to be further evidence that pre funding would be a no-no.

No Name - the answer depends on your point of reference ERISA - no luck, they finally said I can go home now. not much before my 4:15 limit, but beggars cant be choosers.

if you aggregate for coverage, you MUST aggregate for ADP test (or vice versa since some people run the ADP test first) don't get confused on the term aggregated whether you aggreagte or not all bodies are treated as being employed by one employer, hence all will show up in the denominator for coverage. if you aggreagte, one adp test, all employees if you dont aggregate, 2 ADP tests, only those employees actually eligible

can't guarantee I can answer specific questions (or at the moment how rapidly I can get to them) - have a couple of must do projects on my desk. tpoje@dorsaconsulting.com

since match is small (you indicated match is at 2%) the avg for the NHCEs would be less than 2%. I'd be surprised if 'shifting' didn't help.(or eliminate a failed ACP test) for example, suppose after corrections for failed ADP test you are left with the following: ADP ACP HCE 5 2 NHCE 3 .5 shifting 1% would result in 4 3 2 1.5 and at that point you pass. some argue you can't shift after making corrections to the ADP test. I hold you are able to do so. ERISA Outline book presents arguments either way.

the good news is the individual will take the annuity. for better or worse, this whole thing gave me an excuse to get a hold of Mike. Go Wolverines!

suppose you work backward. assume plan was 65/5 yrs participation. ee enters 1/1/06 so NRD would be 1/1/11 ok if 65/4 it would be 1/1/10 65/3 1/1/09 65/2 1/1/08 65/1 1/1/07 65/0 would seem to be 1/1/06

on question 6 where it asked how many actuaries in the United States, I couldn't find the answer 'too many'

probably to clarify all employees are treated as being employed by one employer. therefore, for coverage all bodies show up in the denominator. it is optional if you want to aggreagte. if you aggregate for coverage then you must aggregate for the ADP test (or vice versa) you also have the option of aggregating the 401k portion but not aggregating the nonelective portion for coverage and nondiscrim, but again, you must be consistent. Top heavy , as Mike indicated would have required aggregation if a key ee participates in both plans. Thus, while coverage testing might not be aggregated (because you have seperate tests (401k, 401m and nonelective (and possibly otherwise excludables) top heavy would be aggreagted on all.

my 'hidden' sources reveal that Q and A ASPPA conference 2001 #14 said they are restricted. also 1995 Grey Book #45. good enough for me. well, plus a fish said it was logical.