A question has been proposed if direct payments to providers from an employee's fsa plan would be eligible? Excluding debit card payments. I have searched the EBIA and other resources not finding any guidence.

Morning all and greetings, I'm brand new to this forum.

My sister will be filing for divorce imminently, whilst moving out of the marital home. She's in New Orleans, and while I appreciate the rules differ from state to state and that this seems to be an NY board, an explanation of the equivalent laws in NY would be fine for the purpose of further research.

Her Roth IRA is worth slightly over $1m , and she has copies of all paperwork in relation to this. Her children are all adults and established, only the youngest remains at home. For this month she has minor credit-card debts totalling no more than $6000, but will be debt-free at the time of filing.

I have several questions in this regard;

1) Is there any way her husband could contest the divorce to deliberately prolong it beyond the initial six month period? There's been no adultery or illegality on her part;

2) Typically, what are the waiting times between the Court granting a divorce and setting a date for the transfer incident, and the actual transfer?

3) Typically, what ways can spouses delay, legitimately or otherwise, the setting of the transfer incident date, or overrun it?

Many thanks,

Jaybee

Small ESOP owns 50% of company stock. Remaining 50% is owned by President of the company. President has decided to buy out the ESOP to create liquidity for the aging workforce. Is it necessary to put the transaction to a vote by the ESOP participants? Since it is not a merger, liquidation or dissolution of the business, I'm thinking not.

Secondly, once the stock is purchased is there any reason the plan cannot then be merged into the existing 401(k) plan? Vesting is not an issue, but President does not want to give distribution options to the younger employees if it's not necessary. I'm thinking a merger would be okay to avoid a distributable event for all participants.

Thanks for any input.

All suggestions are appreciated.

Vanilla DB plan, Vanilla LTD plan (but I don't have the detailed contract).

The latter contains the common long-term disability provision that offsets for anything the EE receives from the DB plan.

Suppose the disabled EE is age 60 and eligible for monthly early retirement benefit, and the DB plan pays a lump sum (rather than an immediate LA). What is the most common administrative practice in the LTD plan: offset the entire lump sum until "used up"? offset the monthly equivalent? other?

Does anyone actually have a mass submitter, volume submitter, or prototype cash balance plan?

Seen a lot of cash balance plans that are using an Adoption Agreement and some sort of volume submitter base plan document, but the opinion letter for those documents is for a defined benefit plan, so really it looks like practitioners are customizing volume submitter defined benefit plan documents to accommodate a cash balance plan's provisions. Am I right that these aren't really volume submitters anymore, but individually designed plans?

I seem to remember the IRS saying something about a program to formally approve cash balance plan documents - does anyone recall exactly where and when they said that?

401(k)

Safe Harbor Nonelective

Top Heavy

Company bought out.

Plan terminating 8/31

Participant Compensation

Safe Harbor Nonelective made for the 8 months to all eligible. Participant Compensation used for 2 new employees entering 7/1.

I know that the Compensation limit needs to be prorated 8/12 * 245000 = 163,333.33

Two questions

1. Do the two EE's that entered mid year have to have additional contributions because the plan is top heavy and the 3% was only on participant compensation?

2. Does the 402(g) limit need to be prorated? 415 Limit?

I haven't had a plan termination in years - so just wanted to make sure I didn't need to do 1 or 2 above.

Thanks

Pat

Not sure which is the best forum, but I will try this one. If an LLC elects to be taxed as a corporation under the "check-the-box" rules, is it a "corporation" for all purposes under the 414(b) and © rules? The logical answer seems to be clearly "yes," but I don't recall ever seeing any confirmation of that.

Let's say there are NO participants required to be reported for 2009. Does anyone have a problem with me voluntarily reporting my 2010 people in the 2009 plan year in this situaiton? I have good reasons for doing it this way, so please don't say "why don't you just report them in 2010?"

When I go to the IRS FIRE website I get a message that there is a "certificate error" with the site and I should not sign on. (I'm going to "https://fire.irs.gov" per the instructions)

I'm not very computer literate...can anyone tell me how I should address this issue?

thanks in advance!

edited for outcome...

I sent an email to the IRS help for the FIRE system and was advised that I would need to contact our ISP about the security settings we might have that would cause this error.

They said that a lot of people have this issue.

I was under the wrong assumption that certificate errors meant a problem with the website but apparently that isn't so.

Assume an employment agreement provides for payment on either (i) involuntary termination, or (ii) voluntary termination within 90 days following a change in control. Is it permissible to revise the agreement to delete the second payment trigger, such that the amended agreement provides for payment only upon an involuntary termination, or does the substitution rule somehow prevent the attempt to ensure that payment is only made upon a substantial risk of forfeiture?

Also, is it permissible to add the language providing that each payment will be deemed a separate payment, so as to allow stacking of the short-term deferral and separation pay plan exceptions, or does that language have to be in the first and original version?

Thanks.

To what extent is it permissible for non-excluded union employees to have separate provisions in a plan?

I believed that it was permissible, if the benefits were collectively bargained, but I am unclear as to what limitations there are, and would appreciate any guidance/direction to the appropriate reg. or authority.

Conversely, if different provisions are not permitted, I would appreciate knowing that also.

Specifically, in a plan, there is no exclusion for collective bargaining employees. The plan would like to permit the union employees to be able to have in-service withdrawals. In-service withdrawals are not otherwise permitted nder the plan, and the plan sponsor does not want the non-union participants to be able to take in-service withdrawals.

Is this permissible?

Thank you

A father and his adult son (over age 21) each own 50% (profits and voting) of a small company with a score of employees.

The son owns 100% of another company with a handful of employees. The son has no children or grandchildren. The companies don't do business together, but the son works and is paid wages from both companies (mostly from the company he owns 100% of).

The attribution rules generally say: If the parent or the adult child owns more than 50% then the smaller stock ownership is attrributed to the other.

So, if one of them owned more than 50%, then it would be a controlled group. But an exact 50/50 split is not - is that correct?

We have a plan where the sponsor now tells us that company 1 and 2 are not related, but they have been using a prototype and treated as a single employer plan. What are the consequences of not knowing a plan was an MEP - document becomes individuall designed until it gets restated onto a volume submitter, what about 5500's - I think an MEP files one but may have to identify they are an MEP?

The plan was safe harbor so ADP and ACP testing was not necessary.

any thoughts would be appreciated!

What guidance, if any, exists from the DOL/IRS or elsewhere on the consequences for failing to satisfy the bonding requirements under ERISA section 412?

I handle the employee benefit accounts in our Trust Department. I passed the ERPA exam this week, and I sent in my ERPA enrollment to the IRS. Once I receive my ERPA credentials, I will be eligible to recieve the ASPPA designation as a QPA too. I presume that the QPA designation is above the QKA designation since ASPPA requires additional course work beyond QKA to earn the QPA. My primary question is how do the various credentials compare with one another in terms of credibility? QPA vs. QKA vs APA vs APR vs CEBS? Are there any other comparable credentials? Which of them is recognized in the field as the most prestigious?

ok - Plan Sponsor moves plan assets from product with surrender charges. There are individual accounts. Sponsor wants to reimburse the surrender charges. Charges are not unreasonable but Sponsor wants to reimburse just the same. I know these have to be treated as Employer contributions not restorative payments.

Am I reading things correctly that Sponsor can amend the plan for a special formula for this allocation and then must test the allocation to be sure it is not discriminatory?

I did see a method described whereby the Employer "bonuses" each affected participant through payroll and then gives them the option to defer some or all (provided the Plan Doc allows). Are there any issues with this scenario?

I know that a covered entity can be a business associate of another covered entity. In that situation, what things do you consider when determining whether or not to require a business associate agreement from the covered entity with whom you do business?

We are having a bit of an issue. The model Corbel 457(b) basic plan document and its adoption agreement do not provide for disability retirement. Are we missing something or is that not an option under a governemental 457(b) plan? The employer wants to sponsor a new 457(b) and a new 401(a) plan so we are trying to mirror as many provisions as possible for ease of administration. Any thoughts appreciated!

Pension plan with 2 owner-participants.

They want to invest plan assets in a closely held corporation that they have personally invested in. Their personal investment is about 1.2% of this corporation.

Is this a PT? If so, what party in interest definitions apply?