Guest merlin Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 A client sponsors a profit sharing plan that allocates contributions on an integrated basis. The owner makes < TWB, so allocation is effectively comp/comp. Sponsor has historically contributed 25%of comp. Plan requires 1000 hours and employment on last day of PY for actives to get an allocation. Retirees share regardless of hours. Client wants to amend to a tiered allocation. One participant retired 3/1/08. What is the correct application of 9735001? 1. Can't amend for 08. Start a new plan. 2. Amend for 08, but make sure the retiree gets 25% 3. Something else?
AndyH Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 I'd amend it and make sure the retiree gets what he would have pro-rata. A more aggressive approach would be to preserve what the pro-rata allocation would have been based upon comp through the retirement date. I woudn't do that but I'm sure others would. I think I remember Mr. P. proposing that here once, but I won't name names just in case my memory is faulty.
Guest merlin Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 Andy, Given past history, the retiree would get 25% of pay through his retirement date. Is that what you're considering to be the more aggressive approach?
AndyH Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 I was thinking of a formula change after the allocation requirements had been met but without a retirement. Never mind. I think you just need to give him the same amount that he would gave received without the change. Sorry for the confusing comment. It seems pretty straight forward.
Guest merlin Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 I was thinking of a formula change after the allocation requirements had been met but without a retirement. Never mind. I think you just need to give him the same amount that he would gave received without the change. Sorry for the confusing comment. It seems pretty straight forward.
Mike Preston Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 Moi? Without a new plan, I don't think so. I suppose it is possible if you establish multiple allocation dates. Seems like a lot of work for one participant's reduction (not elimination) of 10/12 of what they might otherwise get, which starts out at only 2/12 of a normal year.
AndyH Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 I have high confidence in our resident archivist WDIK to have the prior comments readily indexed. And, yes, that was the idea. Now who else would have thought of such a thing?
WDIK Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 This thread? Or this one? (I wasn't sure to which point you were referring.) ...but then again, What Do I Know?
Mike Preston Posted April 9, 2008 Posted April 9, 2008 If any, the former. But I don't think either works to address this specific issue. Although the first of the two is closer to the mark, I think.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now