What do you guys know about being a common remitter, and the SPARK Data Files? We;'ve been asked to propose on this service. Does my question alone indicate that I have no business getting invovled? I read some articles that talk about people doing it in Excel, and others with comprehensive web-based platforms that connect sponsors, fund companies and employees. We're bidding on a very small start-up one.

Can anyone direct me to some research materials reporting on the prevalence of SERPs and other types of non-equity based executive compensation?

Assuming we have a cafeteria plan, can I pay certain employees greater salaries if they agree to opt-out of welfare benefits? For example, one employee has health insurance through her husband's job.

Seems okay to me, but I think that if the employees changed their minds down the road, we would have to allow them to participate in the welfare benefits and we couldn't then reduce their salaries.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

We have two companies in a controlled group that sponsor separate plans. Both have several hundred NHCEs, but company A has the majority of HCEs. We have to run coverage and I just wanted to confirm mechanics.

Co A plan has 17 HCEs and it is a 401k plan with a safe harbor match.

Co B has 2 HCEs and it is a 401k plan with a Prevailing Wage contribution to virtually all NHCEs but not HCEs.

Company's A's matching arrangement will fail the 70% coverage test so we need to go to ABP test. The plan will pass the safe harbor % stipulated in test 1 of th ABP test. So when we run the ABP, we use 401k, 401m and 401a contributions from both companies. We easily pass due to the very high PWC contribution. Correct or am I missing something?

My client is considering the following plan design. A "brokerage-window" account is an available investment alternative for ALL non-highly-compensated employees, and for those highly-compensated employees who hold the CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) designation. Although it seems strange to look for a knowledge indicator but not require it for non-highly-compensated employees, the employer believes that this is necessary to avoid non-discrimination problems.

Leaving aside any questions about the wisdom of this plan design, am I right in guessing that it does not raise a 401(a)(4) nondiscrimination problem because the only persons discriminated against are highly-compensated employees?

Do you agree with the employer's view that 401(a)(4) constrains it not to impose the CFA condition on non-highly-compensated employees? Assume that in this employer's workforce about 40% of NCEs hold the CFA designation, and about 60% of HCEs hold the CFA designation.

Who is responsible for "drafting" these documewnts? We are under the impression that it is the fund company who would sign the documents with the employer. But please respond as though I don't know what I'm talking about, because I kind of don't...

If an employer excludes employees from participating, realizes it, self corrects by depositng the corrective deferrals and match, do they have to report this as a late contribution on the Form 5500 on line 4a?

I wouldn't think so because the employer did not "receive" participant contributions that it failed to deposit (as stated in the instructions).

thanks!

Hello:

My company acquired a portion of another company and we are not taking or merging any part of the acquired company's qualified plan in the merger.

New employees from the acquired entity are being allowed to rollover to our QP, and if they have an outstanding loan, they may rollover the loan as part of the unrelated rollover.

My question is that when we set up the loan in our plan, I do not think we need to load the highest outstanding balance in last 12 months from the unrelated plan, since when I read the loan regulations, the HOB relates to the HOB from our plan(s), not an unrelated plan that we are not acquiring or merging.

Can someone assist in confirming my thought process?

andmik

Participant has submitted a preliminary consult bill for dental bills as a medical bill for supporting documenation on a hardship distribution. However, the previous telephone discussions with the participant have all been about expenses not allowed under IRS hardship reasons. The consult bill is dated the day after our telephone conversation.

I've never had a strectch on the "medically necessary" (as opposed the previously incurred) phrasing of the language before. The supporting documentation in no way shows that the participant is going back to get this work done, does not show that there is an immediate need, does not show an estimated treatment start date. Given the knowledge that I know, from telephone conversations, that the participant is more than likely not going to follow through with the dental procedures, don't I need to get more documentation to support the hardship? More of a commitment letter on the medically necessary since it is just a quote?

Any thoughts?

Two plans merge as of 12/31/2010, "Plan Continuing" and "Plan Eliminated". The auditor wants to report ALL investment types as zero (so no mutual funds, etc). But how should I report the schedule A? I'm having a hard time justifying not preparing the A based on the info provided by the insurance company, including reporting an ending balance. The contract itself will actually continue, it will just be re-registered in the name of Plan Continuing. But of course it looks odd to say "no ending balance" on the H and then an Ending balance on the A.

I work for the TPA division of a company that has a number of other functions. The TPA division is part of the retirement plan and wealth management group that includes both broker/dealer affiliations and RIAs. Although I report directly to the president of the retirement/wealth mgmt. group, the VP of the group is certainly in a position of higher authority than I am within the company. I'm posting my question here rather than ASPPA message board because I don't want my name identified with the question.

Recently one of the VP's plans discovered that they have not been operating in accordance with the provisions of a two amendments, one effective 1-1-2011 adding QACA, the other effective 7-1-2010 adding automatic enrollment. Both amendments specifically called for automatically enrolling any participant who had not completed a contrary election. The investment house that began handling the enrollment forms for them at the time of the 7-1-2010 amendment coded the amendment wrong and only enrolled new people. The client is looking to see how many enrollment forms they have on file from before the investment folks took over this responsibility. The investment house has identified up to 90 participants for whom they have no election on file.

This is a large plan, in the midst of a 2010 audit for their 5500. The auditor has not noticed this, nor asked any questions about the automatic enrollment process yet. I have been instructed by the VP that this is his plan, and I am not to say anything to the client, nor the compliance staff that reviews my work about the 2010 error. He intends to correct only the error for 2011.

I'm looking for something stronger than my own opinion or my possible issues with violating ASPPA's code of ethics, to explain to this VP why he can't just pretend he doesn't know about this.

when i go to the dol web site they have a schedule sb that you can fill out on line but it says "SAMPLE" in large letters on it. Does anyone know where this form exists without the word "SAMPLE"? I suppose this form can be used as it is, but it is not aesthetically appealing and would raise questions with plan sponsors.

thanks

I posted this topic under the "Correction of Plan Defects" section, but thought it might be more appropriate here. We have a multiemployer money purchase plan with a participating employer covering non-bargaining unit members, some of whom are HCEs. Apparently, it was believed by the administrator that all employees were covered by a cba, but it turns out this is not the case. The way this plan is designed, it does not look like it satisfies the safe harbor, so it is subject to the nondiscrimination rules. This is complicated, but it appears some of the HCEs were getting contributions of 15-20% of their salaries, while non-HCE were getting contributions in lower percentages. My questions are as follows: What type of discrimination testing needs to be done on a multiemployer money purchase pension plan? If the plan fails the testing, how can it be corrected? Also, one of the HCEs has retired and requested a distribution of his account balance. Can the plan delay the distribution until the nondescriminations problems are resolved? Any help would be appreciated.

Plan is invested in a custodial account with Fidelity and therefore there is no trust, and no trustee. What do I indicate the funding arrangement as on the 5500? My only choices are Insurance, Trust and some crazy insurance thing I've never heard of...

Why isn't "custodial accounts" an option?

Have any studies been performed regarding whether self-funded health plans that extend benefits to same-sex partners/same-sex spouses have had an increase in health claims experience?

My client is unsure of who legally should be the correct beneficiary in the following situation and would like our legal guidance: A participant changed their beneficiary on-line from their spouse to their sibling in April 2011. The participant passed away this month and now the spouse has come forward as the beneficiary. In reviewing the account we found that the spouse is not listed as the beneficiary, and in reviewing the death certificate we see that the participant and his spouse were separated. This would mean that the participant changed the beneficiary on-line without proper authorization from his spouse by selecting that he is not married (which is not true). Would the account still go 100% to the spouse? The client is concerned that because they were separated that it should not be given to the spouse and would like our legal opinion.

The IRS, in Notice 2011-35, discusses fees assessed to fund comparative clinical effectiveness research. For fully insured plans, the fee is to be paid "by the issuer of the policy." See Section 2.03. However, for jointly trusteed self-insured funds, the fees are to be paid by the plan sponsor. See Section 2.07. Plan sponsor is defined, in pertinent part, as the "joint board of trustees" in the case of a plan established jointly by one or more employers and one or more employee organizations. Id.

Can anyone confirm that this fee can be paid by the joint board of trustees out of plan assets (rather than out of their own pocket)? Thank you in advance for any insight on this topic.

I have a strange case involving a multiemployer money purchase plan. One of the participating employers covers non-bargaining unit employess, some of whom are highly-compensated. It appears that the employer will not satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements of IRC section 401(a)(4) due to certain highly compensated employees receiving excess contributions. It looks like this has been happening for several years. Two questions in this regard: 1) Does anyone have any insight into the appropriate correction method?; and, 2) 1 of the highly-comped individuals who has received the excess contributions has now retired and requsted a distribution. Can the plan deny the distribution request pending resolution of the problem? Any help would be appreciated.

Would use of a separate trust agreement jeopardize prototype status?

If a cash balance planuses interest credit equal to the actual return on assets and the plan experiences say a 15% return for the year, does that mean that for funding purposes the participants' accounts are increased by 15% per year right up until ARA?

Ironically a high rate of return can result in higher funding target and target normal costs.

thanks