If a DB plan was frozen several years ago and is in the form of a VS document which needs to be restated for EGTRRA by the end of next April, may the EGTRRA restatement (which will be effective 1/1/2011) contain a zero benefit formula and pretty much eliminate anything that is inapplicable to a frozen plan?

It is likely my employer will convert a traditional DB to CB in the near future, and I will be running the plan. Now is my opportunity to advise on the conversion...and to impact the design of the plan.

The traditional DB has about 1,000 actives. Several years ago it was frozen for new entrants, with new hires receiving a DC pension benefit instead.

It looks like the CB contribution will be a fixed % of compensation with a fixed interest credit. All eligible employees will receive this...no one will receive future accruals under the traditional DB formula.

It's been years since I dealt with CB plans, and I know the law has changed with PPA, etc. What are the basic design considerations for the conversion and the attendant pros and cons? Thanks.

AK supreme ct held that employee was not liable to spouse for drop in value of spouse's interest in 401k plan after spouse's share valued at 319k was segregated in separate account in 401k plan in 2007 pursuant to a property settlement agreement. After divorce AP disputed value of her share of employee's account. When spouse collected funds in 2009 value had declined by 116K and she asked trial court to order ex to make up the loss. Judge ruled in her favor but appeals ct reversed b/c after account was segregated, ex husband had no control over its value. Drop in value was due to AP failure to collect payment.

This case is a good reason why the AP's interest in a DC plan should be segregated as a separate interest as soon as DRO is recieved.

http://arkansasnews.com/2011/09/15/court-m...-drop-in-value/

We need assistance to fix efast.

Who can we talk to that can make eFast more flexible to accept filings from plans that have 52/53 week years? This must be resolved quickly as the current plan year end is only two and a half months away.

Client sponsors MPPP using non-std prototype document.

Plan year is defined as 52/53 week year, ending on the Saturday closest to November 30 of each year.

Plan has several hundred participants and must be audited every year.

We contacted the Efast Help Line because the 2009 Form 5500 for plan year ending 11/27/2010 could not be efiled.

We were advised that the only way to efile it was to check the box indicating a short plan year (364 days).

The current plan year ending 12/3/2010 will be a 53-week year (371 days), which will be un-file-able because it will be longer than 365 days.

If you can help, please respond to this post or email JMFPension@jmf.com

Just a reminder that a policy on the message boards is the prohibition against posting of articles published elsewhere.

Thanks.

(Back reference: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...8057&st=40)

A company has a Health Plan A that all of the employees of Division X (and their beneficiaries) are enrolled in. During a routine audit, it is discovered that the employees of Division X are not eligible to be in Health Plan A. Rather, they are eligible for Health Plan B, which does not offer dependent coverage. All of the employees of Division X are moved from Health Plan A to Health Plan B. All of the dependents lose their coverage.

Are the dependents of the employees of Division X entitled to COBRA? If so, is it from Health Plan A or Health Plan B?

Has anyone run into a situation where a plan subject to funding restrictions under Code Section 436 is required to pay out a death benefit over 5 years to meet the RMD requirements of 401(a)(9)? Normally the RMD rules take precedence, but I am not sure that is true in this situation. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Employer does not want to make any of the monthly withdrawal liability payments to the plan during a soon-to-be review process because there has been no withdrawal--just a change of employer name & EIN while payments under the contract continue--and the emoployer fears that we will be unsuccessful getting these payments, plus interest, back from the union.

What rights, if any, will the employer be waiving with regard to future appeals or withdrawal liability if timely payments aren't made as required? For example, if there turns out to be withdrawal liability, will the employer be able to make up these missed payments, or will suit for collection of missed payments accelerate the entire libaility and foreclose future monthly payments (in addition to imposing 20% liquidated damages)?

The arrangement is an exempt separation pay plan where the individual can leave with good reason within 1 year following change in control. The CIC has occurred and good reason exists, but new company would like for individual to stay on. Are there any issues with creating a new arrangement under which individual will be paid the same amount under a 409A-compliant separation from service plan?

The arrangement is exempt so not subject to the substitution rules, but I am concerned that the new arrangement may be viewed as an impermissible deferral election for the separation pay payment under the old arrangement.

What about allowing the existing arrangement to continue and then lapse with the new arrangemetn kicking-im immediately thereafter?

Thoughts?

A minor was named as the beneficiary of a cash balance DB plan. The amount payable to the minor is over $10,000 and the plan document does not say anything about how a distribution to a minor should proceed.

The minor has a custodial parent, but the law in this jurisdiction (CA) does not permit money to be transferred to a parent on behalf of a minor for sums over $10,000.

Is it possible to amend the plan to allow a transfer to a parent even though state law does not allow such transfers?

If the custodial parent or some other individual obtained a guardianship of the estate for the minor, we would be able to make a distribution, but no one has taken this step for the minor.

How long can the plan hold onto the money that is owed to the minor beneficiary before pursuing other distribution options?

How do a plan's fiduciaries duties to beneficiaries affect how it approaches distributions to minors? Even if we are able to amend the plan to allow distributions to a parent on behalf of a minor, does our fiduciary duty to the minor require us to take additional steps to ensure the minor actually receives the benefit of the money to be distributed?

The plan's main concern is to find an administratively feasible solution for these types of distributions. Thank you for any guidance or practical experience you have which might shed light on how to approach this situation.

Hi all - Have a situation here. Organization A is going out of business and has terminated their 403b plan and distributed or rolled over plan assets. Org A no longer has custody of plan funds as they are fully distributed or rolled. A plan audit of subsequently determines there were at least two payroll periods where late remittances were made during the final plan year.

1) Is the organization still required to correct by paying lost earnings and interest as well as pay excise taxes related to these transactions even though the plan is terminated?

2) If so, how does the organization pay lost earnings and interest if it no longer has custody of the funds? Does it have to cut manual checks and mail them to ex-participants?

Thanks!

If an employer is not concerned about the deduction of the employer contribution, what is the deadline for deposit to the plan. I thought it was the last day of the plan year following the plan year for which the contribution is being made, but I cannot find any reference to that.

Thank you.

Kate Smith

Profit-sharing plan has cross tested allocation formula in which groups consist of:

HCE

NHCE with less than 5 years of service

NHCE with 5-14 years of service

NHCE with 15-24 years of service

NHCE with more than 24 years of service.

One participant with 20 years of service terminated employment, incurred a break in service and was reemployed.

Employer insists she be put in the allocation group of NHCE with less than 5 years of service.

Has anyone ever heard of ingnoring years of service for the purpose of putting an employee in an allocation group?

The plan defines years of service for eligibility, allocation of benefits and vesting but does not address this particular situation.

Thanks for any insights.

Is the ERISA 101(j) notice for a DB plan that is between 60% and 80% funded an annual notice requirement or is it just required for the first year that the plan becomes subject to the restrictions?

I have a situation where the owner/plan sponsor wants to by a life insurance policy (covering himself) that was purchased by his spouse, who has been making the premium payments. His wife no longer wants to pay the premiums. Any issues if f he buys the policy from her with plan assets at the current cash surrender value and than continues to pay the premiums form the plan?

I have read that life insirance policies may be purchased by the plan from a particpant or employer but this is a bit different.

Thanks!!!

To simplify, suppose you had a 2 participant DB plan that had a failure discovered on plan audit.

Suppose the plan had existed for 15 years and one of the participants had a PVAB of $1,000,000.

Suppose audit cap was offered and the correction was made. Let's say the sanction was 40% of the maximum payment amount. The maximum payment amount is the tax that would be paid had the plan been disqualified for all open years. Suppose $200,000 of the $1,000,000 had accrued during the open years. With respect to the amount taxable to the participant, is the maximum payment amount $200,000 x tax rate or $1,000,000 x tax rate?

Thanks

We are counseling a client to make a DFVC filing for Form 5500 filings going back a number of years for a severance pay plan. In this situation, Form 5500 should've been filed, so assume there is no wiggle room there. The client has asked whether making a DFVC filing might increase the likelihood of a DOL audit of the company.

I have done numerous DFVC filings over the years, and never had a client audited by the DOL thereafter. In fact, I think that you can make a good argument that a DFVC filing decreases the likelihood of audit, if anything (i.e., it's logical to think that a company making a DFVC filing will have looked for any other issues prior to filing, and this would be one major one off the table). However, has anyone else had a different experience or does anyone else hold a different opinion?

I heard (second hand) that in the IRS phone forum this week, the IRS would look unfavorably upon any participant loan interest rate that is less than Prime plus 2 percent, and that they also stated that a participant loan interest rate of "Prime" is totally out of the question.

Well, I thought this was a DOL matter anyway. Also, if I went to a lending institution and put my money in an account there and then asked them what interest rate they would charge me to loan my own account back to myself, wouldn't these firms just say "it's your own account, what rate do you want charge to yourself?" (after first thinking that I must be crazy). Please, tell me if there is a commercially available interest rate to compare against for that type of lending.

Did anyone hear this phone forum from earlier this week, and can you confirm/deny the statement above?

I've always waited until I have the schedule SB from the actuary before sending out a 5500-EZ for a client to sign. When I look at the instructions, it actually says:

"If the plan is a defined benefit plan, the enrolled actuary must complete and sign the 2010 Schedule SB...and forward it no later than the filing due date to the person responsible for filing the Form 5500-EZ..."

Does that mean you can go ahead and file the Form 5500-EZ early as long as you end up getting a copy of the Schedule SB by the filing due date (including extensions)?

The line item just asks if the plan is a DB subject to the minimum funding requirements. It doesn't actually ask if the minimum funding standard has been certified.

Thanks!

An employee wishes to put his spouse onto the plan because the spouse lost health insurance on June 1, 11. They just made this request today....3.5 months later.

It seems to late to add the dependent who lost coverage thru their employer, but in reading the regs, I do not see a "statute of limitations" anywhere in there. I imagine there must be one. Can anyone comment on this?