I'm not sure where to put this question, so I'll go "general". Has anyone any experience in qualifying a PR db retirement plan? Is it like here where you can be operational and then apply for a determination letter or do you have the plan approved before assets are deposited?

I have someone who wants to spin off its PR population into a PR plan before 12/31/2010 to take advantage of Rev. Rul. 2008-40. Is this possible at this late date since there is no PR plan in place?

Thanks for any response.

An individual was a plan participant and was vested when she terminated employment after 3 years on the job. She made no deferrrals, and there were no employer contributions allocated to her account--therefore, she never had an account balance (i.e., she had an accrued benefit of $0, in which she was 20% vested). She then was rehired 10 years later.

I assume that means she is a "nonvested participant" (as defined in IRC Section 410(a)(5)(D)(iii)) and therefore subject to the rule of parity (IRC Section 410(a)(d)(D)). Agreed?

Or, does (iii) mean that she is not "nonvested" because she has a nonforfeitable right to an accured benefit and it's just that this particular accrued benefit turns out to be $0? In other words, does the answer turn simply on whether she is vested or not vested, with the question of whether or not there's an account balance being immaterial? (The latter argument falls apart if you consdider employee deferrals, because an individual is always 100% vested in deferrals, and that argument would therefore cause an individual never to be nonvested once eligible to defer.)

Thoughts/comments?

Plan is in 410(b)(6)© transition period following closing of acquisition. It wishes to maximize the transition period, but also wishes to amend its 401k plan to add an auto enrollment feature. The addition of the auto enrollment feature will allow the plan to be considered a safe harbor plan (it already has a level of matching contributions that meets the criteria). Would this amendment be considered material so that it would disrupt the transition rule?

So I passed my ERPA Exams (yeah!), and submitted my application. They make it very clear that it will take at least 60 days to process. When you call up to check on the status of your application, the recording tells you that if it has not been 60 days, hang up and call back when 60 days have passed.

For me, my 60 days will happen the week following the ASPPA National Conference (which I am attending).

A while back, I contacted ASPPA, who told me to e-mail OPR to ask if there is any way for me to apply that CE to my ERPA requirements whenever my enrollment card shows up. Three weeks later, OPR responded to me saying "that's a good question, I'll check on it and get back with you........"

I still haven't heard back from them.

Does anyone know if there's any kind of precident for this with other enrolled persons (enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, etc.)? or am I just out of luck?

What should a company do if it sends distribution materials to a terminated vested participant prior to the participant reaching age 65 and the participant does not respond? Does 401(a)(14) require distribution to begin or can the company rely on the provision in the regulation that says "notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a plan may require that a participant file a claim for benefits before payment of benefits will commence" and not begin payment until the participant applies or reaches age 70 1/2 - whichever comes first? (The plan says that benefits must begin at age 65, But also requires participants to file an application in order to receive benefits.) Thanks!

Are people going nuts trying to get clients to signh the hard-copy by 10/15, or taking it on faith that if they efiled by 10/15, and subsequently sign the hard-copy they should be all set as long as its within a couple of days?

Generally, or course, not an issue but on 10/15 it becomes an iomportant question!

We have a participant over age 70.5, non-owner, who worked part of the 2010 year, can she still opt out of taking her RMD for 2010 or does she have to be active at the end of the year?

Does anyone know of any circumstances under which an employer can offer a SIMPLE-IRA to one class of employees and a 401(k) profit sharing plan to a second class of employees? This is a single employer with one tax ID number.

Does anyone know of an IFILE work around that would allow a paid preparer to sign the 5500, but still have the true plan administrator's name show up on the box on the right hand side of the page?

According to customer service at EFAST2 (which was actually great) there is no way around, this but I just thought I would check.

We have several defined contribution plans for which contributions have been frozen. We listed this as one of the plan attributes on the 5500 (Line 8a contains 1I).

We have filed the 2009 5500 with DOL and they have been accepted but with errors. The error code is B-674, "Schedule R, Line 13a cannot be blank when Form 5500, Line A is checked and 5500, Line 8a contains "1x"(Defined Benefit Plan) and Form 5500, Line 7 is less than 20.

I called EFAST2 and they said it was an IRS issue and to call them. I gave up after over 2 hours of holding.

The DOL has accepted these filings but we will need to file an amended return to deal with this error. Anyone see this yet? Or, have an answer?

Thanks.

Gary

I had to export a few plans from RGF and import to IFILE, which was a breeze. And getting the client to sign was also a breeze, because everything was at the same site, and not to metnion the DOL's site is holding up very very well.

The invitation proicess worked out perfectly, simple and efficient. The only down side is the lack of reporting on a firm level, but we might be able to work around that by saving the confirm emails for comprehensive pre-deadline checks, which we always did anyway.

Any thoights from anyone else??

I've looked everywhere for guidance or some sort of procedures on this issue:

Governmental 401(a) plan is not a qualified retirement plan for Social Security purposes.

No Section 218 agreement in place.

FICA taxes therefore being paid on contributions to plan.

How might the plan be converted into a qualified 401(a) plan, which would then eliminate the FICA taxation of contributions? Can it be done? If so, what are the procedures for doing so? And what is the authority permitting this to be done?

Any assistance pointing me in the right direction would be much appreciated!

I wasn't sure where to post this, but we are a small company and have had a handful of problem clients and have not received any info for a couple of plan years.

Is there a proper procedure to follow when deciding to resign with those clients? What should be or needs to be sent in order to begin the process of getting rid of these problem clients?

Hi All

I was curious to know if there is a statute of limitations to contact court ordered attorney for a QDRO?

The separation agreement is worded:

.......................The division of the Husband's pension shall be done by way of a QDRO. All costs associated with the preparation and filing of the QDRO to be shared equally between the parties. The parties shall engage the services of Attorney xxxxxxx xxxxxxx to complete the QDRO and to carry the terms of this paragraph. Attorney xxxxxxxx's fees and costs shall be split equally between the parties. .........

OK divorce 1/27/10

State: Connecticut

Said husband asked said ex-wife at least 8 times if she was ready to follow that paragraph-in other words contact (maybe), pay one half the expenses (definitely). She never really answered and to this day shows no interest in contacting the attorney, paying 1/2, and getting it done.

Said husband tried for at least 3 months-he feels that he has done his due diligence and therefore does not plan on bringing up the subject again. Oh the ex wants that money, but appears too lazy to make any arrangements.

My question after all this is-is there a statute of limitations for contacting and payment to the attorney?

I understand the admin. or attorney in this case has to act in timely mannor, but what about one of the 2 parties involve in separation agreement?

Sorry for the lenght, but thanks in advance.

Mr. Thompson would like to join his wife's insurance plan. His company wants a way to reimburse him for the difference in the insurance premium. (She pays $150 per month, and adding him would be a total of $350, so a $200 difference.) My understanding is that a PRA reimburses for an individually owned insurance plan, not something that is employer sponsored. Anything else they could look into?

Can you obtain the AckID from within Ifile, or is it necessary to screen print each of those pop-up boxes that indicates the ackid?

Unincorporated client sponsors both a DB and a PS. PS plan provides for the 5% top heavy minimum. Calendar plan and fiscal years. Client says they will contribute (x) for 2009, which is substantially higher than the 5% TH minimum. At a later date, LONG after the tax filing deadline, says they decided not to contribute to the PS plan. (Not realizing/understanding that the 5% isn't discretionary in this case.) Client did NOT have a tax extension for 2009, so filing date was 4/15/10. So they are now contributing within the next 30 days, and DEDUCTING for the fiscal year in which paid - that is, 2010.

So here's the question: under the 415 regulations, in order to be considered "allocated" for 2009 - the contribution must be made within 30 days after the end 404(a)(6) period.

(B) Date of employer contributions. For purposes of this paragraph (b), employer contributions are not treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year unless the contributions are actually made to the plan no later than 30 days after the end of the period described in section 404(a)(6) applicable to the taxable year with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If, however, contributions are made by an employer exempt from Federal income tax (including a governmental employer), the contributions must be made to the plan no later than the 15th day of the tenth calendar month following the end of the calendar year or fiscal year (as applicable, depending on the basis on which the employer keeps its books) with or within which the particular limitation year ends. If contributions are made to a plan after the end of the period during which contributions can be made and treated as credited to a participant's account for a particular limitation year, allocations attributable to those contributions are treated as credited to the participant's account for the limitation year during which those contributions are made.

With no tax extension, does this mean that in order to be considered "allocated" for 2009, it must be made by 30 days after 4/15, since there is no tax extension? Or, can the phrase "no later than 30 days after the end of the period described in section 404(a)(6) applicable to the taxable year with or within which the particular limitation year ends" be considered to include the 404(a)(6) period that would have been available if there was a tax extension?

I choose to employ the latter interpretation, but it does seem a bit gray to me, and I wondered what others thought. The former just seems to arrive at a ridiculous and unreasonable result.

We happened to read Section 6.6 of the McKay Hochman prototype db document and realized it contained what we thought was distressing language. Distressing primarily because we never knew it was there.

6.6 Eligibility For Death BenefitsThe Plan need not provide a pre-retirement death benefit, other than a qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity for the benefit of either the Spouse of a married Participant or for the benefit of a former Spouse under the provisions of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Additional incidental pre-retirement death benefits may be provided for by the Employer in the Adoption Agreement. Except as provided below for Participants who are employed after attaining the Qualified Early Retirement Age (as defined in paragraph 1.72), unless the Employer provides for an additional incidental death benefit, no benefit will be payable to the Designated Beneficiary of an unmarried active or terminated Participant who dies prior to Normal Retirement Age, even though such Participant may have had a vested and nonforfeitable interest in a deferred benefit payable at Normal Retirement Age. Notwithstand¬ing the above, a Participant who is employed after attaining the Qualified Early Retirement Age shall be given the opportunity to elect to have a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity or one of the optional forms of payment, become effective upon his or her death. To the extent that it is not in conflict with the provisions of Article VII, such election shall be made during the period beginning on the later of the 90th day prior to the Participant's attainment of the Qualified Early Retirement Age or on the date on which participation begins and ends on the date the Participant actually retires or terminates employment. The Plan may require a minimum not to exceed $1,000 before it will provide or increase an insured death benefit.

So, the appears to imply that even if the plan coded the death benefit to be the minimum REA QJSA (J&50 - spouse only), that upon the attainment of Early Retirement age, ANY participant can elect a different death benefit. Therefore, a single employee can elect a lump sum (assuming that is an available option) death benefit. If that is true, it becomes impossible to use McKay Hochman prototype for a sponsor that only wants the minimum death benefit.

Do McKay Hochman users provide election forms for participants attaining early retirement age? Could the estate sue the plan if they don't make this clear to the participants? "If dad would have known he could have elected a death benefit, he certainly would have elected a lump sum"

Anyone else familiar with this provision?

Form reading a few other threads it sounds like others are having the same problem we are with Sundgard - not timely returning any calls for government forms support.

It is very irritating to say the least. We had several plans fail yesterday when e-filing, kind of stressful being the 13th and all and still haven't gotten a call back from Relius. Fortunately it was the 13th and not the 15th and the problem seems to have cleard today and we were able to file our last 3 remaining plans.

We once switched from then Corbel to Hyperprep over a similar issue one year but Sungard just went out and bought up Hyperprep a few years later and we got sucked back in. I'm wondering if we should change again next year?

Question for people using other government forms software, what has been your experience with them for ease of filing, helpfulness of support and timeliness of return calls, when software is initially available, ease of using program, etc.?

Any thoughts (possibly after the 15th I understand) would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

I am just beginning the process of terminating a DB with excess assets and want to let the client know what to expect as far as timing. Does anyone have any experience with requesting a determination upon termination since the advent of the cycle program?

I did a quick search of this forum and apologize if this is addressed elsewhere, but I am looking for relatively current info.

Thank you!