Lynn Campbell

lindamichals - Does your service agreement cover this contingency? What does it say? I cannot recommend doing more work for a client who has not paid for prior work...

I would think that the first step is to contact the person who was overpaid, before any more time elapses, and attempt to have the funds repaid. If that person agrees, then things are greatly simplified. I would imagine that the E & O carrier would insist on this before they considered any claim, and the TPA may prefer not to contact the E & O carrier unless necessary.

Am I correct in assuming that if employees are excluded from participation by class, they get neither the top heavy minimum nor the gateway? Also, if there is no exclusion by class, it is OK to give non-key HCEs just the top heavy minimum, not the gateway? Thanks.

I think it is legal, assuming these statements were not requested by the participants. Based on experience with my clients, I wonder if the employees might compare notes and take issue with the difference in content?

Is there any new information on the model SAR with the info required to avoid the small plan audit requirement? Is there any delay on the requirement that this information be included in the SARs we are preparing now? Thanks for all input.

Is there any new information on the model SAR with the info required to avoid the small plan audit requirement? Is there any delay on the requirement that this information be included in the SARs we are preparing now? Thanks for all input.

I have a Volume Submitter Plan for a cross-tested profit sharing plan document. The Plan is silent on the subject of waiving participation. An attorney involved in drafting the document has advised that I can let the client permit waivers, (2 employees have already waived as permitted by prior document) and that it is not necessary to have document language permitting waivers. Is this OK? If not, I need to amend the Plan and will take it out of Volume Submitter status... and have to submit by 9/30/2003. Thanks for your help!

I have a volume submitter document which is silent on the issue of waiving participation. I do not want to revise the Volume Submitter document and therefore require IRS submission... Is the client able to use this document and continue to permit waiver of participation? Under the pre-GUST document, waivers were permitted and 2 employees did waive participation. Both are HCEs...Thanks for all help.

Is this a 401k Plan? If so, are there any 401k deferrals being made to the Plan? These are considered Employer contributions and can trigger top heavy.

The in-service distributions will not be permitted until the GUST amendment has been signed. I guess I would treat the in-service distribution that was made earlier this year in error as not having occurred since the funds were returned to the Plan. Is this the approach you are taking?

Thanks for the tip. In your recent experience, does the IRS ask for any items that are not included on this Checklist?

It has been a long time since I submitted a Plan and I was hoping someone could offer their list of items that go to the IRS with a submission of a Volume Submitter or Prototype Plan. I would like to avoid the IRS requesting additional information and slowing down the process. Thanks for all input!

Katherine - yes, the language was operational. For calendar 2002 year, we had a benefit formula (Defined Benefit Plan) which required deviation from volume submitter language. For calendar year 2003, we will use a benefit formula which fits within the volume language. Do I need to submit? Thanks.

What about a situation where you amend for GUST after 2/28/02 and there is a modification to the Volume Submitter Language. However, before 9/30/03, you revise the GUST document so that there is no modification to the Volume Submitter Language. Are you required to submit the earlier document, regardless? The language which deviated from Volume Submitter Language in the 2002 Calendar Year was the benefit formula. For Calendar year 2003 we would remove the deviation by revising the benefit formula. Thanks for all input.

I always thought, like PAX, that no Plan is required to apply for a determination letter. But based on the ASPA ASAP #03-18 in certain circumstances, the plan must be submitted by 9/30/2003. I would appreciate all comment on this matter. Thanks!

I cannot help mentioning this: a couple years ago when I had an IRS audit, the auditor mentioned that HE read Benefits Link message boards etc.

You need to read the Plan document to see what the Eligibility Requirements are.

I would use the actual contribution made by the Employer. That would be the lower number, so I agree with your conclusion.

Would this work? Charge each person $10 for processing the check?

I have seen amendments replacing one or more pages of an Adoption Agreement many times and I think this is perfectly OK.

If an employer has a safe harbor 401k and for the current year is making a 3% nonelective contribution - and he decides NOT to make that contribution in the next Plan Year - what is required? A Notice to that effect? I assume a Plan amendment would be needed?? Is the safe harbor plan designed so that each year a decision must be made about the safe harbor contribution?

I have encountered this situation many times and have just filed the correct form and not X'd any of the Final Return or First Return boxes on either form...I've never received an inquiry from the govt. (so far).

My opinion: 1. yes. 2. I would use the date of the final transaction that took the Plan assets to zero. So that would be the payment for the Trustee's fee in this case.

Whether he is deemed benefitting is not the issue. If he gets zero dollars allocated to his account from contributions, and zero dollars from forfeitures, he is not an "active participant" for purposes of the IRA deduction rules. Thus he can take the deduction.

Isn't it true that an age-based plan normally does not have to make the gateway contributions???