Leaderboard

That's a great quote and applicable to some extent, I think, to EB professionals (including lawyers...especially lawyers) in and out of government, but in their defense I would say EBSA has an awfully small staff for a really big job.

You don't want the DOL to get the perception that the client cannot be bothered with the final 5500 filing or even worse, the DOL perceives the clinet is disregarding the DOL. They will not go away until they have what they want. The folks in TEGE are a bunch of swethearts by comparison to the DOL.

A different market? A different industry altogether. Nay, a different world!

that person will need to file for an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) which the plan will need prior to payout https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/taxpayer-identification-numbers-tin#:~:text=An ITIN%2C or Individual Taxpayer,NNN-NN-NNNN).

Agreed, but it seems that I'm already in a similar situation with these brokerage accounts.

@my2greenize Yes, have no fear there. When you enroll in active coverage again as a rehire, your COBRA continuation coverage will terminate. When you subsequently lose active coverage again because of termination of employment or reduction of hours, you will experience a new COBRA qualifying event with a new 18-month maximum coverage period. There is no limit on the number of COBRA qualifying events you may experience with the same employer/plan. A couple posts that may be helpful in case you're near Medicare age (65): https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/early-termination-of-cobra-upon-enrollment-in-other-group-health-plan-or-medicare/ https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/how-cobra-and-medicare-interact-for-retirees/

Hi all I am with Peter on Bill's contribution of knowledge. Thank you all for confirming my approach i.e. cannot be changed though I need to think about the 2 plan approach, very creative. To answer B. Parvarandeh, I am dealing with an ERISA attorney and I am not budging. Be safe all and have a great week, 3 more days to 10/15.

We've seen this on occasion and have always taken the position that the employment agreement has no impact on the plan. We'll help them get to where they want to go if possible, with an actual amendment or creative ideas.

ERISA § 402(b)(3) commands: “Every employee benefit plan shall—provide a procedure for amending such plan, and for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan[.]” Employee-benefits lawyers understand that compound sentence to allow opportunities for widening or narrowing which people can amend a plan, and what kind of writing is valid or ineffective. A plan’s amendment provision could be broad, such as: “The Plan may be amended by anything that is the act of the Plan Sponsor.” Or narrow, such as: “Only a non-electronic written instrument signed by the Plan Sponsor’s Executive Vice President for Human Capital and witnessed by the Plan Sponsor’s Deputy General Counsel for Employee Benefits can amend the Plan.” Here’s a few of courts’ decisions: Horn v. Berdon, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan, 938 F2d 125, 127, 13 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BL) 2492, 2493 (9th Cir. July 1, 1991) (“[T]there is no requirement that documents claimed to collectively form the employee benefit plan be formally labelled as such.”). Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U.S. 73, 18 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BL) 2841 (Mar. 6, 1995) (Stating as little as “[t]he Company” may amend the plan is enough to meet ERISA § 402(b)(3)’s two requirements—that a plan “provide a procedure for amending [the] plan, and [a procedure] for identifying the persons who have authority to amend the plan[.]”). Cerasoli v. Xomed, Inc., 47 F. Supp. 2d 401 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 1999) (A written plan need not be a single, formal document.). Halbach v. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co., 561 F.3d 872, 46 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BL) 2010 (8th Cir. Apr. 13, 2009) (A letter mailed to participants referred to a summary of material modifications. Those two writings formed an “instrument”. That instrument was sufficient to amend an employee-benefit plan.) Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 1:02-cv-00373, 51 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BL) 2028, 2011 WL 2160893 (M.D.N.C. June 1, 2011) (An attempted amendment was void because it was not made according to the plan’s amendment procedure.), further proceedings on other grounds, No. 1:02CV00373, 61 Empl. Benefits Cas. (BL) 2860, Pens. Plan Guide (CCH) ¶ 24019B, 2016 WL 660902 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 2016). To understand whether a writing beyond the thing called a “plan document” amends a plan, a starting point is to read the governing documents of the plan that might or might not have been amended.

I agree with Luke. Unless the resolutions are explicit on this point, I think the better argument is that the termination means termination. You cannot make a contribution under an instrument that does not validly exist.

alexa, generally a lump sum vacation pay cashout is "good" compensation (for deferral and matching, and other contribution purposes) under the Code and regs, as long as paid within the later of the end of the plan year in which the employee terminated or 2-1/2 months after termination. See Treas. reg. sec. 1.415(c)-2(e)(3)(iii)(A). As for whether it is compensation for purposes of your particular plan, that will depend on the plan document. If it was compensation for deferral purposes under your plan, it was probably supposed to be match, but that could only be determined for sure by reviewing your plan document.