OCPP

[ERISA1]

I've heard that there's a Pennsylvania law firm that owns the rights to a "unique" plan design. The plan allows employers to allocate profit sharing contributions on the basis of One Participant Per Category. I think I've seen lots of other firms doing this; using a volume submitter (not prototype) plan document. You may feel this technique is too risky or inappropriate, but my question is this: Is there anything "unique" or proprietary about a One Category Per Participant design? I thought Corbel even teaches about this kind of design in its Cross Testing seminars.

If you can direct me to any written references to usages of One Category Per Participant or OCPP by any one other than a Pennsylvania law firm, I'll really appreciate it.

Thanks

[Mike Preston]

It is not unique. Many volume submitter plans have language which directly supports the concept.

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

The idea that anyone has the "rights" to plan designs developed following the guidance of the IRC and Regs. is not possible. On a side note, I have the rights to air, so you all better pay me a royalty or stop breathing!

[GMK]

The IRC and Regs. are like the air that we breathe. What a great analogy ... in so many ways.

[Jim Norman]

The IRC and Regs. are like the air that we breathe. What a great analogy ... in so many ways.

More like smog.

[Mike Preston]

Is it incongruous that a fish has rights to air? Or is that an intentional portion of the analogy?

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

I wanted to cover myself in case someone instead claimed rights to air. I need no air sucka!

[ERISA1]

Thanks for all of your feedback. I particularly like how the discussion has devolved to smog!

I need to clarify my question a little. The Philadelphia firm claims to own the acronym "OCPP". They may have been the first to use the acronym, but it was my impression that OCPP has become a generic term (like "cell" phone) referring to any One Category Per Participant Plan design.

I agree that One Category Per Participant plan designs are not unique to that firm. But, does anyone have a short-hand name for it other than OCPP?

If they're the only firm that uses OCPP, they may have a legal right to prevent any other TPA from using that acronym. So, my question is just this: Do you use the term "OCPP", or have you seen anyone other than a Philadlephia law firm use the term OCPP?

Thanks.

[Jim Norman]

If they're the only firm that uses OCPP, they may have a legal right to prevent any other TPA from using that acronym. So, my question is just this: Do you use the term "OCPP", or have you seen anyone other than a Philadlephia law firm use the term OCPP?

Have never used the term, have never seen anyone else use the term, have never had any need to give this sort of plan a separate name. We usually call them "tiered" plans, as most rank and file employees are getting the same %. Sure the document says each participant is a separate category, but that's not really the main selling point to the plan, more just a convenient way to write the plan to give us flexibility to move things around to pass testing.

[Earl]

how about OPPC

One particpant per category

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

I like the OPPC name.

If I was you, I would market a song for it to the tune of O.P.P

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/naughty-by-nature/opp.html

[Mike Preston]

Like many things made up by those in the marketing end of things, OCPP is an illogical name, because I have never seen a plan that has TwoCsPP or ThreeCsPP or FourCsPP. In fact, the nature of the beast is that every single plan is OCPP. Now, had they named it OPPC, as recently suggested, at least the name would have made some sense.

So, in a nutshell, anybody who would tread on their "patent" would be marking themselves as people who do not understand the product they are selling. Sounds a bit like Congress and the bills they pass.