Tom Poje

my understand would be no. In other words, I have a checklist. The gov't has looked at that checklist and issued a letter saying everything is ok. Now I am changing something, even though, in this case it is small, it has changed something the govt hasn't given its 'smell' test to. Dang, I hate to tell, the checklist in regards to class allocation has room for 5 classes. We're not even sure if you 'add' a 6th class if that changes thing

in a round about way? I may never have the time to look at those regs, I think I read 2 pages so far. I have some print offs of reviews and the notes I have say 'for example, a plan that satisifes the ADP test by testing may not be aggregated with a plan that uses the ADP safe harbor' In other words, you cant aggregate plans with different testing methodologies. And if you can't aggregate for testing, then I guess you can't aggregate for top-heavy?

Well put, oh 3-eyed one. Take the correct approach and follow the terms of the document. On a related area, I had a plan once that had 0 hours if you died. pretty common language. One participant died and the company didn't want to provide a contribution, because death was a suicide. Plus the individual was only there a few years and you become 100% vested upon death.

Nothing wrong, per se, I guess. Recall the examples used for minimum gateway testing and whether a plan satisfies broadly available rate bands. Those examples generally used 5 year age brackets, but there is no reason you couldn't use 1 year age brackets, which is what takes place in an age weighted plan. I believe it would have to be individually designed, thus I think you would have to get a determination letter. And then you would have to test for nondiscrimination - though if you are using a lower interest rate I can't imagine the plan failing when you test using a higher interest rate. The ERISA Outline book describes an true age weighted plan as one that uses interest rates between those used for non discrimination testing. The Corbel document checklist (and I am sure any of the others) would only allow you to use between 7.5 and 8.5% interest rates, hence the necessity of going individually designed.

yes, but... if an employee has already worked 500 hours this year then he has already met the requirements for the standardized plan and for all practical purposes it would be too late to do anything this year.

see the last line of 1.401(k)-1(g)(4)(i) "An employee does not fail to be treated as an eligible employee merely because the employee may receive no additional annual additions because of section 415©(1)"

TTATE: The easiest way to remember when the limit applies is to look at W-2 statements. The govt is going to look at these as filed with the 1040's and determine if an ee is over the $12,000 limit for the calendar year. Generally that should make it easier on payroll personal to track as well.

if she quit between June 10 and July 1 would she have been eligible? I don't believe so, because being employed on the entry date is generally considered a requirement as well.

you have to aggregate both deferrals and match. Read notice 98-52, IX B 2- which deals with HCE, 2 plans only one of which is a safe harbor. it talks about the dangers of the match - it could cause the HCE to receive a greater rate of match

If the 401(k) only consists of deferrals, there is no deduction issue since deferrals don't count. it is a good deal.

Interestingly enough, the proposed regs that just came out would forbid aggregating a safe harbor with a non safe harbor. As I understand it, you do not necessarily have to aggregate the plans anyway, though you do have to aggregate the HCEs deferrals.

Actual Analogies and Metaphors Found in High School Essays 1. Her face was a perfect oval, like a circle that had its two sides gently compressed by a Thigh Master. 2. His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free. 3. He spoke with the wisdom that can only come from experience, like a guy who went blind because he looked at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it and now goes around the country speaking at high schools about the dangers of looking at a solar eclipse without one of those boxes with a pinhole in it. 4. She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was room-temperature Canadian beef. 5. She had a deep, throaty, genuine laugh, like that sound a dog makes just before it throws up. 6. Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever. 7. He was as tall as a six-foot-three-inch tree. 8. The revelation that his marriage of 30 years had disintegrated because of his wife's infidelity came as a rude shock, like a surcharge at a formerly surcharge-free ATM. 9. The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't. 10. McBride fell 12 stories, hitting the pavement like a Hefty bag filled with vegetable soup. 11. From the attic came an unearthly howl. The whole scene had an eerie, surreal quality, like when you're on vacation in another city and Jeopardy comes on at 7:00 p.m. instead of 7:30. 12. Her hair glistened in the rain like a nose hair after a sneeze. 13. The hailstones leaped from the pavement, just like maggots when you fry them in hot grease. 14. Long separated by cruel fate, the star-crossed lovers raced across the grassy field toward each other like two freight trains, one having left Cleveland at 6:36 p.m. traveling at 55 mph, the other from Topeka at 4:19p.m. at a speed of 35 mph. 15. They lived in a typical suburban neighborhood with picket fences that resembled Nancy Kerrigan's teeth. 16. John and Mary had never met. They were like two hummingbirds who had also never met. 17. He fell for her like his heart was a mob informant and she was the East River. 18. Even in his last years, Grandpappy had a mind like a steel trap, only one that had been left out so long, it had rusted shut. 19. Shots rang out, as shots are wont to do. 20. The plan was simple, like my brother-in-law Phil. But unlike Phil, this plan just might work. 21. The young fighter had a hungry look, the kind you get from not eating for a while. 22. "Oh, Jason, take me!"; she panted, her breasts heaving like a college freshman on $1-a-beer night. 23. He was as lame as a duck. Not the metaphorical lame duck, either, but a real duck that was actually lame. Maybe from stepping on a land mine or something. 24. The ballerina rose gracefully en pointe and extended one slender leg behind her, like a dog at a fire hydrant. 25. It was an American tradition, like fathers chasing kids around with power tools. 26. He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if she were a garbage truck backing up. 27. She was as easy as the TV Guide crossword. 28. Her eyes were like limpid pools, only they had forgotten to put in any pH cleanser. 29. She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs. 30. It hurt the way your tongue hurts after you accidentally staple it to the wall.

curious if anyone else has had this happen. I did a control/Alt/Del to see what was running and discovered about 10 DER routines - despite the fact that Relius wasn't even active!

You run the test. If it fails you calculate the refund. If one of those ees is eligible for catch-up the refund to that ee is reduced. You do not reduce deferrals first then run the test. Never. Catch ups are due to someone hitting a limit. If you reduced first that would be before someone hit a limit. (or put another way, you are not allowed to treat something as a catch up to avoid hitting a limit) .............................................. It might be of interest to note that prop reg 1.414(v)-1(d)(2)(iii) last sentence "...such elective deferrals are still considered to be excess contributions...and accordingly, matching contributions with respect to such deferrals may be forfeited under the rules of section 411(a)(3)(G)

a leased employee shall not be considered an employee of the employer if (amongst other things) "...does not constiute more than 20% of the NHCE workforce." (I'm just reading that straight from the document sitting on my desk. typical language, I bellieve required to be in the document, but I am no expert in that area) well, since they are 100% of the workforce it looks like they are employees. does he have to include them in a contribution? of course not, you can exclude just about whoever you want. Will he pass testing? Of course not, there are a flock of NHCEs not benefitting.

once someone has met eligibility they are included in coverage (unless of course they are a non benefitting terminee with < 500 hours.) If they have elected out (one time irrevocable) they are treated as includable and not benefitting. for deduction purposes you would not be able to include the compensation from the one Dr. since he received nothing. This would not be much different than setting up a class plan as 1. Dr A 2. Dr. B (gets nothing) 3. all others keys excluded from top heavy minimums.

I printed it out and it came to 219 pages. page 4 states quite clearly estimated annual burden per respondent is 1 hour 10 minutes. I wonder if that is in terms of time on the planet Jupiter.....

Regardless of whether the plan is top-heavy or not, the plan must pass ADP/ACP testing. Thus, if no one else deferred in the prior year, the HCE could not defer in the current year. Or if current year testing was used, then if the NHCE is 0, the HCE could not defer either. Even if a top heavy is provided. The exception would be a safe-harbor 401(k), but that would not be a top heavy plan unless other contributions were made. or The first year of a plan, since you can use 3% as prior year for testing. The top heavy could be treated as a QNEC (if the document so allows) and could be used in testing as well.

Coverage is simply "Are enough NHCEs covered compared to the number of HCEs covered" Coverage is generally not interested in "How much" was given to people. The only time 'How much' comes into play is if the ratio percentage fails - and then, only for the Avg Ben % test. Nondiscrim is concerned at looking at the 'how much', and treating each 'spoiled' HCE as if they had their own little plan, and at that point you check to see if you are favoring even just one of the many HCEs. Without looking it up, if I recall, Demo 5 is for the Avg Ben test, and if you pass ratio % it would be unnecessary.

incorrect. there is no safe harbor for after tax contributions (see also ERISA Outline Book page 11.390 2003 edition)

careful, next they'll give them a pencil and ask them to fill out 5500s.

try this and see if it helps. since the plan is cross tested, it is obvious the HCE is getting 'more' than the NHCEs you aren't testing things as a DC plan, but rather converting things to the DB world - you are figuring an accrual. remember your rules for top heavy combined db/dc? The minimum is 5%. I am guessing that is the logic behind the whole gateway. It is a 'minimum', except they gave you a break and said you could go with 1/3 if HCE was less than 15%. ok, maybe my logic is twisted, but heck, try and explain the things the govt does.

vesting period is never prorated, it is always a 12 month period for lack of reg cite I will point to ERISA Outline Book 4.34 (2003 edition)

insufficient info provided. you have a possible 3 coverage tests 401(k) 401(m) nonelective since everyone can defer the 401(k) would be exception D but you did not indicate if there is an hours requirement or last day provision for the other two features. see also regs: 401(k) – Benefiting if an eligible employee 1.410(b)-3(a)(2), 1.401(k)-1(g)(4) 401(m) - Benefiting if an eligible employee 1.410(b)-3(a)(2), 1.401(m)-1(f)(4)

originally it came about because the company I work is also listed under the Q and A columns and the boss wanted an article written to throw on there. someone else read it and asked me where the heck I pulled the numbers and stuff, and this guy was a wiz with excel and he sent the spreadsheet to me. I've tried to modify it for the new rules under EGTRRA - I could easily have goofed somewhere, but I think it still works correctly. Anyway, I call it a 'nifty' spreadsheet (but that is my terminolgy, I suspect the term 'excellent' or 'useful' might be better - the guy who wrote the original sheet is way up there in my book! Sounds like you might agree!