Tom Poje

from what I recall, just because the loan has been treated as a deemed distribution, that obligation to repay it still exists, and therefore, the old loan must be taken into consideration when determining how much the person borrows on any additional loan. (treated as if it still exists)

the propsed regs (maybe they are final now, I am just looking in the book I have) 1.414(v)-1(d)(2)(iii) last sentence even though the deferrals are treated as catch ups and not actually distributed "...such deferrals are still considered to be excess contributions...and accordingly, matching contributions with respect to such elective deferrals MAY be forfeited under the rules of section 411(a)(3)(G)." I dont read MAY as saying you dont have to, but rather normally you wouldnt forfeit match, but this is an exception to the rule. you may (or put another way) you have to forfeit the match

oh, someone told me your head was on upside down!

see notice 98-52 IV H the last line says "....hardship is not a distributable event for contributions other than elective contributions."

if true that only QMACs may be used in the ACP test, then I need to get a permament magic marker and blot out 1.401(m)-1(b)(5) which lets me use QNECs in the ACP test. (Maybe the person is thinking of Relius software which calls the QNEC used in the ACP test a QMAC - no one has been able to get them to change the term either)

jevd: wasn't that what inspired the banana boat song? Ke - ogh Ke - e -e - ogh Keogh come and I wanna go home RCline: my hair seems to be graying a lot faster than yours and I don't go back that far. dang, I only go back to the mid 80's. what's up with that.

you can't. the original regulation would have increased the % as soc sec went up. in fact, in 1988 it went from 5.7 to 6.05, but in 1989 it was set back (somewhat permanently) at 5.7. no, I don't recall running a plan at the 6.05%, I am looking at a table showing the %s.

that sounds like a typo. It safe harbor contributions that are not eligibile for hardships. I don't think there is an animal called safe harbor deferrals. rather there are deferrals made to a safe harbor plan. .............. I suppose because of terminolgy the previous post might be considered confusing. it was referring to hardships that meet the requirements of being 'safe harbor hardships' which doesn't imply the plan is a safe harbor 401(k)

why not just read 1.401(a)(4)-7 which describes in detail how to impute disparity. in particular paragraph (b)... if the plan took into account full disparity and used the TWB as the integration level.....this is used to determine if plan...satisfies the general test....and average benefits percentage test... there are no exceptions. at the same time, why not argue that you should be able to use 6.2% rather than 5.7% since that would reflect the actual Social Security percentage that is taken out from a paycheck.

also you did not mention if Keys were excluded from top-heavy minimums.

the wife is an HCE by attribution. Gateway minimum need only be provided to NHCEs. Hence, as long as you can pass cross testing, you can give her less. She would have to be in her own class e.g. class 1 = owners not by attribution class 2 = spouses of owners class 3 = all others

(whew) I was afraid it was Eliminate All Pojes.

I received an e-mail from someone on Benefits link, but their e-mail does not work, so I can not respond directly. ...................................... This is kind of a silly question, but I thought that provided you are using 100% of TWB, integration percentage had to be the lesser of 5.70% or the actual base percentage, but as I read Spencers, it seems to say it is the percentage is the lesser of 5.70 or 2 times. .................. Basically it is the same thing, but one has to be careful about the terminolgy being used. for example, a plan allocates 3% up to the TWB and 6% above the TWB would be ok (there is your 2 times formula) algebraically 3% up to TWB + 6% > TWB but this is the same as 3% up to TWB + (3%>TWB + 3%>TWB) which can be rewritten as (3% up to TWB + 3%> twb) + 3%>twb or 3% total comp + 3%> twb hope that helps

A couple of thoughts. Notice 98-52 section VIII D "To the extent they are needed to satisfy the safe harbor contribution requirement of section V.B, safe harbor matching and nonelective contributions may NOT be used as QMACs and QNECs under any plan for any plan year" That is why I wouldn't use the term QNEC in referring to these contributions. (That is why some of us have been using the term SHNEC instead, just so there is no confusion) As for the discretionary match, it is still discretionary. As long as the SPD lists the possible contributions that might be made I think you are all right. (That would be no different than a regular 401k with a discretionary match) The cite is Notice 2000-3 Q-8, that the Notice provide 30 days before plan year begins may reference the SPD.

If things are really unclear, I would hold you do not have a definitely determinable formula. That is a problem. I'd further hold if the document does not say the match will be made on a payroll basis, e.g. it simply says 10% of compensation up to 5% deferral, then you should use ytd numbers and a true up would be required, but that is only my opinion. But I hold that opinion because I imagine compensation is defined in the document as 'total' or 'from date of entry'. you might check the SPD to see if there is any clarification.

my understanding is that catch-ups are not made on the election by the employee - at least not 'technically'. One chooses to defer, and if it exceeds an allowable amount, then the excess would be treated as a catch up. Take for an example a plan that fails the ADP test. Would you argue that since the employee did not elect a catch up, you would have to distribute the excess contribution to pass the test rather than treat that amount as a catch up?

If really desperate, save the report to a file. open in Word. switch report format to landscape. highlight all, and change font to '8' at that point you could edit anything to your hearts desire in Word

it has never been possible to have eligibility conditions on a SHNEC (except for the 'otherwise excludable option). and you could never apply eligibility to the Basic match or enhanced match either. It is only the discretionary match that the propsed regs say no more eligibility condition.

there have been various changes made to Benefits Link and during one of those changes attachments to old messages disappeared, so that might be why you couldn't find it.

lost power at home for 66 hours, so had to throw everything away. At work, the phones were down until noon on Tuesday. Maybe 8 inches of rain over 3 days. Now that Ivan is coming for a visit I figure the Yankees would require me to 'forfeit' something more if the power goes out.

the shnec is a 3% (or more) that must go to all employees. A safe harbor is going to require a contribution of some type. One of the requirements for the ACP safe harbor(e.g. discretionary match) is that the plan passes the ADP safe harbor

I am really just a cartoon character invented by the Japanese. And you folks have been depending on me for answers. (Click on my name)

you can always have a safe harbor 401k that provides a SHNEC (passes ADP) and then have a discretionary match (limited to 4% of comp [not deferred] note however, the proposed regs say you can not put eligibility conditions on the match.

Appendix A .04 (Rev Proc 2003-44 [EPCRS] )allows you to self correct, so to say you cant distribute is not quite correct. given the conditions of being related employers, I would assume that means you have to distribute to avoid disqualification

mk2308: the self correction you cite refers to a 'corrective distribution'. I would hold that refers to things like a failed ADP test, rather than a distribution.