Guest johnarmknecht Posted October 28, 1999 Posted October 28, 1999 In calculating the 1999 Top Heavy test for a plan with a 12/31 plan year end, I have the following calculations in which I am confident of the calculations: 12/31/98 Balances for Key EEs = 3,096,677.97 12/31/98 Balances for ALL EEs = 7,193,148.80 Withdrawals made from 1994 to 1998 Plan Year Key = 80,303.40 Non Key = 118,353.20 Which calculation below is correct? 1) 3,096,677.97 / (7,193,148.80+80,303.40+118,353.20) OR 2) (3,096,677.97+80,303.40) / (7,193,148.80+80,303.40+118,353.20) Since it passes no matter which is used, it is not critical in this example but where the ratio is close to the 60% thershold, it could make the difference. I personnally believe that formula (2) is correct but would appreciate others input. Thanks John Armknecht
Guest Posted October 28, 1999 Posted October 28, 1999 John, the correct answer is "2." According to IRC 416(g)(3) and Treas Reg 1.416-1, T-30 and T-31, distributions made during the 5 year period ending on the determination date are "included" in the top heavy ratio. This means that distributions for both key and non-key employees are added back. Hope this answers your question and I hope everything is good with you.
Guest Posted October 29, 1999 Posted October 29, 1999 1 is certainly wrong, but 2 needs further clarification. from your 12/31 balances, exclude anyone who has not performed services for 5 years. (ees who have terminated 5 years ago but are not paid out) also, if plan is profit sharing, do not count the profit sharing contributions made after 12/31 for the 1998 plan year.
david rigby Posted October 29, 1999 Posted October 29, 1999 Tom is correct, but a further point of clarification: For those who have not performed an hour of service in the past 5 years, do not count the account balances OR the payouts, even if the payout occurred in the last 5 years. But beware, in some companies, rehires even for short time periods may be common. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
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