I have one client that needs a fasb report.

the prior actuary prepared the 2009 fasb report incorporating expected return on assets as a component of 2009 net periodic pension cost. this computation was done in 2010 after the actual return on assets was known.

in preparing the 2010 net periodic pension cost here in 2011 I am thinking that it is more appropriate to use actual return on assets instead of expected return on assets as a component of 2010 net periodic pension cost. I sent the report out prepared in the same manner as was done last year, but I have second thoughts re: that aspect.

On the flip side if actual return on assets is used then it seems that the entire asset gain would have been fully recognized and thus no additional gain would need to be recognized or folded into the unrecognized total net gains.

Any views on this?

For the 2011 projection of net pension cost using expected return of course makes sense.

thanks.

As part of the definition of specified time or fixed schedule, 1.409A-3(i)(1)(i) provides that "an amount is not objectively determinable if the amount of the payment is based all or in part upon the occurrence of an event, including the consummation of a transaction by, or a payment of an amount to, a service receipient."

I interpret this to mean that if a plan provides that an employee will receive some percentage of the net sales proceeds from a sale of the company, the plan would violate the above language if it provided for the payout to be made in installments, as opposed to a lump sum, because the amount would not be objectively determinable.

Am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for any insights.

A court ordered a QDRO share of my late husband's 401(k) to his ex-wife. It is for a finite, specified dollar amount. I am to receive the balance after she receives her share. I am both the named beneficiary as well as beneficiary under Federal ERISA rules.

She has submitted a QDRO twice and both times the QDRO was rejected based on technical incorrectness. However, since then she has not re-submitted a new QDRO. We have been asking them to do so with no result.

It is our belief that she is deliberately delaying the submission of the QDRO with the intention of waiting for the market to drop -- as is anticipated as a result of the situation in Japan (and elsewhere). She is actually very solvent financially and she would not mind a small loss. Her goal has been more along the lines of hurting me, rather than gaining more for herself. That she gains more for herself is but a side effect. (and NO, I did not break up their marriage -- it was broken before I met my husband and he was already divorced from her at the time, so I did nothing to deserve this -- she is just that kind of person, unfortunately).

Since I am NOT as solvent, and I NEED this money in order to live (for my future) I am quite concerned about this. Is there any way I can force the submission of a CORRECTED QDRO?

I had the idea that perhaps an appeal to the judge to assess penalties for the delay and/or for the submission of incorrect QDRO's might work.

what are my options here?

I just found out that we have used an incorrect EIN number for a client since 2006 (off by one digit)

Do I have to amend all of the filings? If so, how do you do that for the years prior to EFAST2 filing?

Someone told me that after the PPA we no longer have to provide security to a plan if a plan amendment results in underfunding. Is that true? That doesn't make sense. So can we now amend our plan without worrying about having to provide the plan with any security no matter how much the amendment causes the plan to be underfunded?

We've been notified by one of the investment companies with insurance products that the information for schedule A is delayed YET again. Is there some legal requirement (DOL?) that requires this information be provided by a certain date? Something along the lines of deadlines for providing W2 or 1099 to employees and participants. TIA

PBGC covered plan terminated in December 2010, last asset expected to be distributed in next couple of days. The normal form of benefit under the plan is a life annuity but plan is paying out lump sums to all participants.

The plan has about 20 missing participants, so need to file Schedule MP within 30 days of last asset distribution.

I am confused with regards to the following:

1) Is the deemed date of distribution the plan termination date i.e. Decemeber 2010 or the last asset distribution date which will be April 2011?

2) The benefit amount will be calculated as the higher of plan assumptions and PBGC assumptions, correct?

3) Lastly, since this is a lump sum distribution and not an annuity purchase, the $300 PBGC loading will not be applicable, correct?

Thanks in advance for all help.

I have read earlier posts regarding the possible inapplicability of Code section 457(f) to federal credit unions, and these earlier posts seem to suggest that no nonqualified deferred compensation plan can be maintained (under any section of the Code) by federal credit unions. Regardless of whether section 457(f) applies, shouldn't a federal credit union be able to maintain a deferred comp plan subject to Code section 409A? If 457(f) does not apply, does that mean no deferred comp plan may be offered? Is there any section of the Code that anyone can provide that indicates a federal employer cannot provide a nonqualified deferred comp plan?

Can someone confirm that I am correctly reading the form 5500 as requiring reporting of amounts paid to the plan sponsor with plan assets to pay for direct expenses?

Participant dies.

No spouse, no kids, Mother's cell phone is disconnect and have no address for her.

Plan is 401k and SH only.

I think we could forfeit but can't use toward the SH, I believe, so reallocation as PS would create tiny balances and blow the TH exemption creating a required company contribution.

Is only thing to do amend plan to pay fees from plan and use it to pay me?

If it is more than one year's fee can you hold it in suspense (I think no but not sure if specify use to pay fees)?

Thanks

I am having some difficulty completing a Schedule C for a large filer Cafe Plan (my 1st one). The information I rec'd from the client's insurance carrier is confusing. It's Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. for Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. and First Great-West Life Annuity Insurance Co.

The 1st page has the Service Provider Info and Admin fees paid to provider. I am not sure where I am reporting that. It doesn't appear it should be reported in Part 1, 1 Information on Persons Receiving Only Eligible Indirect Compensation since there is nowhere to actually enter the admin fees paid.

In Part 1, 2. Information on Other Service Providers Receiving Direct or Indirect Compensation is requesting Service Codes (which I could enter the Contract Administrator code) I am not sure what to enter in the other elements since none of the information being requested is on the form I rec'd.

Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thank you very much.

Our company DB plan has two BRFs for a select group of people based on age and service. When performing general non-discim testing, we determined that the safe harbor percentage is 30.50%, the unsafe harbor percentage is 20.50%, and the mid-point is 25.50%. The non discriminatory classifcation test for the two BRFs yielded coverage ratios of 21.12% and 21.71%.

TR 1.410(b)-4©(3)(B)(ii) states that the classification is nondiscriminatory only if the Commissioner finds that the the classification is nondiscriminatory based on all the relevant facts and cicumstances. We only test every three years.

Q1) Does that mean that an application needs to be made to the IRS for a ruling on whether the clasificaion is non-discriminatory, or can we make that judgment call ourselves.

Q2) The BRF is an inexpensive early retirement supplment and a death benefit. It seem reasonable to me to expand the eligiblity for these BRFs to increase the coverage percentage so it is above the safe harbor percentage. That seems less expensive and less painful than trying to get a determination that the classification is nondiscriminatory.

Anyone care to share their insight?

LL&P.

How do you handle quarterly notices for participants who have self-directed accounts for their salary deferral amounts and have pooled accounts for safe harbor funds? Do you include the safe harbor funds in their quarterly statement or just refer to their self-directed account?

We are about to hit the IRA season...April is just a couple of days away.

Feel free to post your questions. We have accountants, lawyers, and lots of folks who have probably dealt with your issue before.

BUT.....don't forget there is also a search engine (tucked away in the upper right corner) that can be used to mine for prior posts on topics. I know you can find a lot under these keywords.

Mutual fund

No Load

Real Estate

Inherited

Options

Fees

Beginner

Started (as in just getting)

Stocks

Conversion

Rollover

Custodian

RMD (required minimum distribution)

Besides posting a new question, you may want to tag a second question to an existing thread.

Having a hard time distinguishing between them.

What about an Employee's Child (EC) who is under 27 and married? I assume because no support by the employee is required under this category, it doesn't matter if the child is married and out on their own or not and the employee can submit claims for this person. Is that true?

Can a brokerage firm pay a $500 finder's fee or gift for establishig a new rollover IRA using outside funds?

I was under the impression (PTE 93-1) that "The fair market value of the property or other consideration which may be measured by its cost to the financial institution, or the cash received, must not exceed $10 for a deposit of less than $5,000 and $20 for a deposit of $5,000 or more. The conditions of the proposed exemption did not specifically limit the form the premium or other consideration may take."

From a recent email from a National Brokerage Firm ("NBF") --{name has been changed}

Credits for deposits of new funds or securities from accounts outside of NBF will be made as follows: deposits over $250,000 receive $500; deposits between $100,000 and $249,999 receive $250; deposits between $50,000 and $99,999 receive $100; deposits between $25,000 and $49,999 receive $50. This offer is valid only for new or existing IRAs (limited to Rollover IRAs, Traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs), but excludes NBF Securities and Bank accounts. Deposits of new funds or securities from existing NBF Bank and NBF securities accounts are not eligible for this offer. New funds or securities must be deposited or transferred within 45 days of new account opening or enrollment in offer, and must be from accounts outside of NBF Bank and NBF Securities. One account promotion per customer. Promotion is limited to one account per User ID and is not valid with any other offers. Deposits must be made into a new or existing IRA account to qualify for credit. NBF... associates, and non-U.S. residents not eligible. New funds or securities must remain in the account (minus any trading losses) for a minimum of 6 months or the credit may be surrendered. The credit will be made to your account within 8 weeks of account funding. We reserve the right to terminate this offer at any time. Accounts must be enrolled by December 31, 2011, the offer expiration date.

..... may be subject to IRS Form 1099-MISC reporting requirements should the total value of those items exceed $599 in a calendar year.

Although as a percentage it is not that bad, I was not aware of any interpretation that allows gifts of this magnitude (i.=e., over $20).

Anyone have any additional information?

20/5000 = .004

500/250000 = .002

If their is a 5% owner who turns 70 ½ on Sept 29, 2011, who does not need to make a distribution until 4/1/2012. 

What if by 12/31/2011 the 5% owner will no longer be a 5% owner (shares are being sold).  Would they still need to make the distribution in 2012 (assuming no distribution was made in 2011).

For clarification, at what point does the sale need to take place during the year so that the participant is no longer considered a 5% owner?

Is it affected by the participant's spouse who is also a participant, 5% owner, and younger then the RMD age?

I have a plan that needs general testing. The plan does not pass on a dc basis...However, they do pass on a db basis. My question is can they be tested for general testing on a db basis as a stand alone plan if they have an active db plan? Or if we go to a db basis do I have to aggregated the db plan in? Both plans pass ratio coverage testing.

my understanding is that a standing election can be made regarding meeting minimum required contributions and increasing the prefunding balance.

However, a standing election cannot be made to meet quarterly contributions. That is, a specific election must be made to meet a quarterly.

Any differing views?

thanks

An LLC taxed as a partnership wants to fund some employer contributions during the year for the partners. However, it is not known what their earned income will be until the end of the year, so it's difficult to estimate what the final safe harbor match and/or profit sharing #s will be. Historically their comp has been well over the $245k limit to support the max contributions. BUt what if at the end of the year it's not? Are there any guidleines of what is ok to contribute during the year?