Can anyone recommend an actuary or other professional that is very experienced and comfortable with the morass that is the regime of welfare plan nondiscrimination tests (self-insured medical plan, cafeteria plan, DCAP, etc.) for a possible engagement to perform these tests for a foreign headquartered employer with numerous U.S. entities within a common control group?

Or is this a facetious question?

Thanks.

the July CPI-U figure was released today = 225.922

the plan limits are based on the figures for the 3 month period july-aug-sept.

based on the current value the deferral limit would be 17,000 for 2012.

comp limit of 250,000 and 415 limit of 50,000. They'd have to change the regs to prevent that from happening. well, we've been stuck for 3 years, maybe its about time things increased.

should the average for the 3 month period jump to 226.666 then the regs would have the comp limit at 255,000 at the 415 limit at 51,000. (assuming my calcs are correct)

some of those folks in Washington have to love that with the budget and everything else.

if an employee dies and they find the form in the employees desk is it valid. the plan says it needs to be filed with the plan administrator.

i know you can't forfeit vested accounts due to fraud or theft but what if the employee used a fake social security number?? does that give the employer a way to prevent the employee from getting the money?

A top-hat plan was set-up several years ago. The plan appears in form to be drafted in compliance with 409A and only for a select group of management or highly compensated employees. Notification was filed with the DOL on this plan. In operation, there are some participants who are management, but there are other participants in the plan whose ($50,000) is barely above the average of all employees. The employer said he selects the employees he wants to include not on whether or not the are management or a highly paid employee, but on whether or not they might leave. The employees elect whether or not the want to participate in the plan prior to the beginning of the year in which the contribution is made. I know there would be negative tax consequences to ineligible participants, but was 409A also violated for these participants, and if so, on what basis?

Thank you so much for any guidance you can provide.

We are the TPA for a (takeover) 401(k) plan where a participant terminated employment several years ago (>5 years). She has a very small account balance left in the plan <$100. We notified the employer that they could distribute to her in a lump sum without her consent. It has now come to our attention that this participant is deceased. They can't locate a copy of her beneficiary designation form (and she was not married). What do we do with the money???

an employer sponsors a DC plan and a DB plan.

The DC plan includes the top paid group election and the DB plan does not elect top paid group.

Plans are to be combined for testing in 2011.

My understanding is that (in absence of plan amendment) if both plans do not elect to use top paid group then the top paid group election does not apply.

I believe this is based on the consistency requirement found in notice 97-45.

any similar or differing views? thanks

I'm trying to determine whether a participant with an outstanding loan can, as part of the distribution process, waive the cure period. A participant requesting a distribution before the cure period ends certainly seems to be automatically waiving, and I would like to state that on the distribution form. It seems logical that they can waive, but I have found nothing specific in the forums or Code on the topic. The plan's loan rules are silent on this. Thoughts especially those including citations, are appreciated.

Does anyone know if it is possible to receive a report from the SSA or other agency showing who has been reported on Form SSA as being entitled to a future benefit? Like many employers, we conscientiously reported people who were due a benefit but were much less careful about reporting those who were subsequently paid out. Of course now we receive calls from those participants when they are notified that they may have a benefit due, resulting in significant research to document the fact that distribution was made. I would love to be able to request a report showing everyone still showing up as Code A in any of our several plans. The alternative, going through years of paper filings, is rather daunting. Has anyone ever done this? Any assistance is appreciated.

FACTS

(1) Plan is restricted from distributing benefits in a lump sum because AFTAP<60%.

(2) Participant eligible for early retirement elects immediate monthly payment with full disclosure that lump sum distributions may be available at a later date if participant defers start date and that election to start immediate monthly pension, including distribution form, is irrevocable once first payment is made.

(3) Plan does not provide for opportunity to elect a lump sum of remaining payments once restrictions are lifted.

(4) In three years, AFTAP>80%

Conclusion

Monthly payment continue under distribution form originally elected.

Anyone see any problems???

Facts:

- 401k plan hired a new manager who is not a US citizen. She is working here under a permanent resident card

- She lives in the US

- Her primary source of income, if not her only source of income, is US income

- Taxes are withheld and paid on her us income

- I believe she has a SSN

Question: Can she contribute to the 401k plan?

Note: I looked in the plan document and did not see anything regarding exclusion of resident or non-resident aliens. This plan does exclude hourly employees and that is clearly listed under eligible employee (as excluded)

Facts: A contribution becomes a catchup in one of three ways:

Contribution in excess of 402 g limit

Contribution in excess of plan limit.

Failure of adp test and reclass as catch up

Issue: I have a client where an hce contributes 16500 and the owner does 5000. The owner is 50. Since the 5000 is not in excess of 402g and the plan has no limit, the 5000 is in the adp test. The non owner hce gets a refund.

Goal: I would like to count the 5000 as catch-up, and have the owner in the adp test as a zero.

Question 1: Which "wording" below can I use?

Question 2: Would the owner still be in the adp test as a zero or be removed from the test completely?

Example 1: "for any hce age 50 or over, the first 5500 of 401k will be treated as catch up"

Example 2: "salary deferrals for owners are limited to 0%" (with the thought being an owner over 50 contributes 5,000 and it is immediately reclassified as catchup)

If a defined benefit plan is late in paying a benefit to a participant, what interest rate should be applied to the late payment, assuming that the lost time value is not captured by actuarially increasing the benefit?

Can someone confirm my understanding that Schedule C reporting is required for amounts (in excess of the reporting threshold) paid to reimburse plan sponsors for the chargeable cost of their dedicated employees?

That is how I read the form and instructions.

We have a hospital (tax exempt and governmental) with a 403b plan and this hospital owns a tax exempt that has their own ERISA 403b plan. The ERISA plan is a safe harbor plan. The ERISA plan fails coverage on a stand alone basis, but if we aggregate it with the non ERISA plan it passes. Once we aggregate, what happens with testing issues where a safe harbor plan cannot aggregate with a non safe harbor plan? Does this rule even matter since neither plan is subject to ADP or ACP testing - the governmental 403b is non ERISA so no testing, and the ERISA plan is safe harbor so no testing.

Any thoughts?

I am asking if anyone is aware of a "bible" or other quality published resource dealing with benefit issues in spin-off transactions. I often use the Employee Benefits in Mergers and Acquisitions (Ferenczy) as a resource for transactions but from what I can tell of the edition at my disposal (the 2008-2009 one), there isn't a lot of detail about spin-offs. I see there is at least one new edition of that resource (2010-2011) but from what I can tell from its online table of contents, again, there isn't much on spin-offs. Of course, part of this resource may be used in spin-offs (from the perspective of the remaining entity and from the perspective of the spin-off entity but spin-off transactions seem to have their own special nuances. The type of info/material I am looking for would be the type (for spin-offs) that the Ferenczy resource has in it... which are checklists and such for other types of transactions. Thanks in advance for any help.

A calendar plan terminates and is paid out during 2010. The valuation date changes from EOY 2009 to BOY 2010. The 2010 AFTAP was certified based on the 2009 EOY valuation and is in excess of 100%. There would not be a material change in the AFTAP if it were recertified based on the 1/1/2010 valuation and I can see no reason why an actuary would have been required to recertify for 2010.

When filing the 2010 SB Is it correct to report the 2010 AFTAP on the Schedule SB based on the 12/31/2009 valuation? This would mean reporting the same AFTAP on 2 consecutive year's SB filings since that is the number that was reported last year.

The instructions to SB seem to suggest that they want that number to be the AFTAP based on the current year valuation results (specifically stated for non-BOY vals), but the instructions don't shed any light on how to handle this in the year after a change in valuation date.

A plan has immediate eligibility however the matching contributions have a 1000 hour allocation requirement for employees coded as part-time ineligible for benefits. So each year this group must work 1000 hours to get the match however full time employees do not have any allocation requirements. Is this a permissible allocation condition that just requires coverage testing under 410(b) or possibly could it be construed as a disguised service condition?

Your thoughts are appreciated!

So we're trying to figure out how to comply with the new participant fee disclosure regs, and what we keep coming back to is this: What are the fund companies doing? It seems that the effort between us as the TPA and the fund company needs to be somewhat coordinated.

Has anyone heard from Hancock, American Funds, Great West, ING, etc. etc. what they are doing, so that we can fill in the gaps? Or are they still trying to figure it out?

Thanks,

How does a company decide that an employee is terminated and eligible for a distribution? Specifically in the case of a part-time employee who gets called in on and off over a long period of time? Should it relate to whether or not they are receiving other company benefits?