A few years back, sometime from 2004 to maybe 2009, there was a case where a plan - and I believe it was a multiemployer plan - had a COB provision that provided the plan would be secondary for claims in excess of $1,000 if the participant was also covered under another plan. I believe the case was in Minn. or Michigan, but I'm not sure of that.

Does anyone by chance know the name of that case?

for profit hospital is a wholly owned subsidiary of a non-profit health system. Employees transfer employment from the subsidiary to the parent. On its face it seems to me that this is a controlled group and as such no severance of employment entitling the participants to distributions. Am I missing something?

Any cites and guidance will be appreciated.

Participant was incapacitated and had a POA. The POA signed the distribution request form for a lump sum. Distribution transaction took place, but unfortunately by the time the check was received the participant had passed away.

Since the POA's rights end when the person is deceased they are wondering if anything can be done with the check, or should it be cancelled and wait until the death certificate is issued? Not sure if it matters, but the POA is also named as the personal representative and 100% beneficiary in the will.

A C Corp is owned equally by 3 people. 1 of the owners works for the C Corp as a W2 employee and is the only employee. Can just the W2 employed owner participate in a 401k plan or must all owners participate?

Also, do all owners have to participate in the profit sharing or can the W2 employed owner be the only owner receiving profit sharing either through a 401k or as a corporation election? Would a regular 401K or a Solo 401k be the best fit in this situation?

an employer has 2 401k plans.

one plan is deferrals only

the other plan includes the key employees, is TH and provides 3% non elective safe harbor

both plans pass discrimination on their own.

so no TH in deferral only plan.

they are thinking of adding a DB plan and testing it with 401k safe harbor plan.

they need to include a couple of people from deferral only 401k plan in DB plan to pass minimum participation.

So questions is:

any problem with a participant in the 401k deferral only plan also participating in safe harbor 401k plan?

the person would be subject to the deferral limit of 17k in total of course and perhaps make deferrals in one plan and receive employer allocations only in other plan.

so, such a person would be in both 401k plans and the db plan, but the safe harbor 401k plan and DB plans combined do not need 401k deferral plan to pass non discrimination.

thanks

After a diligent search, I cannot find any references that an ERPA can represent the plan sponsor (as an example) to the DOL. So that is my question, is the designation recognized by, and have the same weight with, both agencies? Primarily interested in 5500 filing for DC plans only--where the ERPA would be authorized to sign / file the 5500.

Thank you.

Has anybody addressed how to proceed as an employer when an employee's HSA account has been closed by the trustee because of unpaid fees on the account? The trustee (bank) refuses to re-open the account because it has had too many problems with this employee. Any thoughts? Encourage the employee to open a new HSA elsewhere? Have the employee prospectively change his HSA election as there is no account in which to place salary reductions? The employee is due to receive an employer contribution to the HSA in October, but if there is no HSA, there can be no contribution. Thanks for your comments.

204(h) Notices

Is a 204(h) notice to participants required when a 401(k) plan is terminating?

Everyone will quickly write back to me NO.

Please consider these facts before writing that quick response.

This is not a Money Purchase Plan.

This is not a plan that had a money purchase source transfer in.

This is not a Defined Benefit plan of any sort.

This is a 401(k) plan that has a Fixed matching formula of $1 for $1 up to 5% of compensation.

Does the fact that the plan has a "Fixed Match" formula subject this company to the 204(h) notice requirements?

If anyone thinks it does, please let me know the code.

THANK YOU

Ok Relius users....when you have a situtation where a participant is a rehire and immediately enters the plan on rehire date; is the only solution in Relius to hard code that date since it is a date other than the normal entry date? I have a plan with a number of people eligible on rehire and was wondering if there was an easier way than hard coding them all.

thank you in advance.

Payroll is based on the 15th of every month, but paydate is actually the 20th. For reviewing whether 401k deposits are late, is it correct that we would use the 20th since that is the actual date the monies are separated?

What's the current interest rate used for calculating interest on underpmts from a pension plan? I saw it was to use the 30 year pbgc rate as of 1/1 for each year to 2008 but what is 2009 since?

An employee termianted in 2012 with over 1000 hours in 2012

the company sponsors a DB plan and a 401k plan and combines for testing.

the employee will earn an accrual in DB plan for 2012 since over 1000 hours

401k/PS plan requires 1000 hours and last day employment so employee is not entitled to an allocation in PS plan for 2012.

The combined plan s cross tested and requires gateway of 7.5%.

It is cleaner to meet gateway in PS plan.

Since employee is benefiting in the combined plan format can PS plan simply contribute gateway in PS plan?

Or does PS plan need an amendment prior to 12/31/12 providing for an allocation to this terminated EE?

Now how would above situation change if it were a non elective safe harbor 401k plan? does this allow for the gateway in PS plan?

It seems whether it is a DB accrual or 401k safe harbor the employee is benefiting, but perhaps where employee benefits dictates where gateway can be provided.

Plan sponsor is filing a VFCP application for several late deposits. Two of the late deposits were remitted later than 180 days. Provided the plan sposnor meets the PTE 2002-51 requirements for all of the other late remittances can the excise tax waiver be claimed for all but the 2 dpeosits remitted outside of 180 days?

Thank you for any guidance.

I'm just curious as to whether anyone knows the answer to this.

I checked the IRS LRM language for 415, and I do find the language that I'm seeing in current prototypes. But for Volume Submitter/IDP plans, I've just seen two with exactly the same following language, and I wondered if anyone knows whether this is sample language the IRS released somewhere, or if perhaps one person copied language from another VS provider. Rather than specifying that one plan or the other reduces, it seems to get you to each plan reducing proportionately.

(h)(1) DC Plans with same/different Anniversary Dates. If a Participant participates in more than one defined contribution plan maintained by the Employer that have different Anniversary Dates, then the maximum permissible amount under this Plan shall equal the maximum permissible amount for the Limitation Year minus any Annual Additions previously credited to such Participant's Accounts during the Limitation Year.

(2) If a Participant participates in both a defined contribution plan subject to Code Section 412 and a defined contribution plan not subject to Code Section 412 maintained by the Employer which have the same Anniversary Date, then Annual Additions will be credited to the Participant's Accounts under the defined contribution plan subject to Code Section 412 prior to crediting Annual Additions to the Participant's Accounts under the defined contribution plan not subject to Code Section 412.

(3) If a Participant participates in more than one defined contribution plan not subject to Code Section 412 maintained by the Employer which have the same Anniversary Date, then the maximum permissible amount under this Plan shall equal the product of (A) the maximum permissible amount for the Limitation Year minus any Annual Additions previously credited under subparagraphs (1) or (2) above, multiplied by (B) a fraction (i) the numerator of which is the Annual Additions which would be credited to such Participant's Accounts under this Plan without regard to the limitations of Code Section 415 and (ii) the denominator of which is such Annual Additions for all plans described in this subparagraph.

Is an owner-only plan (i.e, the owner of the company is the only employee) considered to be top heavy? And, is the plan required to include the top heavy vesting schedule?

An employer started making contributions into the Plan on 8/1/12. However, they just had the board meeting and signed the board resolution to adopt. There have already been contributions made. Anything they can do? Can a board resolution to adopt be made retroactively?

Good morning!

Hypothetically, let's say due to an internal error, a significant lump sum payment was made from the Pension Fund to the wrong participant.

If the Fund was already notified of the error and made whole on the incorrectly disbursed funds, is there any regulatory requirement to report the error to a government agency? I.e., "Just for the record"?

Thanks!

Jim R.

Father A owns 58% of the company. He also elected out of the plan and is not counted towards any testing. His daughter also works for the company as is currently in the plan. Is she considered an HCE/Key employee even though her father is not in the plan? Or does the father have to be in the plan in order for the attribution to kick in.

I'm taking over a plan for a new client, and the prior TPA said that the plan has a class-based allocation, but they make monthly deposits and don't require cross testing.

This is new to me. I would have thought that you'd have to test each deposit. The goal of the class-based allocation is to give a standard allocation but only to certain groups of people; is it because the allocation is standard (but it isn't) that we don't have to actually cross-test? Or could I have just heard him wrong? Thanks.

a 2 participant plan has an insurance policy on one of the participants. the premiums have been paid on the policy by policy loans for the past few years, the participant is concerned that having a loan on a policy owned by the plan could be problematic. Seems as if he would have investigated this prior to issuing the loan. However, would there be any pitfalls after the fact?