Alex Daisy Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Can someone tell me who i should report on this line? The instructions read "Include any individual who terminated employment during this plan year, whether or not he or she (a) incurred a break in service, (b) received an irrevocable commitment from an insurance company to pay all the benefits to which he or she is entitled under the plan, and/or © received a cash distribution or deemed cash distribution of his or her nonforfeitable accrued benefit. Multiemployer plans and multiple-employer plans that are collectively bargained do not have to complete line 7h." Do I include anyone who terminated in 2008 and is not 100% vested? What if they were paid out also in 2008, do I include them? Any guidance is greatly appreciated.
J Simmons Posted June 10, 2009 Posted June 10, 2009 Do I include anyone who terminated in 2008 and is not 100% vested?Yes for anyone who had any accrued benefits and was not 100% vested when he or she terminated employment in 2008.What if they were paid out also in 2008, do I include them?Yes. John Simmons johnsimmonslaw@gmail.com Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
Santo Gold Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 A participant does not have an account balance (never deferred and the only ER contributions are match contributions) and terminates employment. Participant would have been 0% vested in the ER contribution. Would you include this participant on line 7(h)? Thanks
Santo Gold Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 A participant does not have an account balance (never deferred and the only ER contributions are match contributions) and terminates employment. Participant would have been 0% vested in the ER contribution. Would you include this participant on line 7(h)?Thanks Found a previous discussion on this. Not sure I agree though http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31387
Below Ground Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I suggest that it boils down to what does "deemed distribution" mean. I would count both since it is safer to do, in my opinion. Having braved the blizzard, I take a moment to contemplate the meaning of life. Should I really be riding in such cold? Why are my goggles covered with a thin layer of ice? Will this effect coverage testing? QPA, QKA
BG5150 Posted July 7, 2009 Posted July 7, 2009 I've always wondered what the point to the question is. Why does the govn't care how many people left who were not 100% vested? Are they keeping track somewhere, and when the ratio of all the plans is high enough they will mandate more liberal vesting schedules? QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
TPAMan Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I always thought they used it as a proxy for possible partial plan terminations.
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