A non ERISA plan wants to stay within the non ERISA safe harbor parameters of FAB 2007-2. If the plan has multiple vendors and wants to limit loans and hardships to a single vendor by amending the plan document/loan policy, does this constitute employer discretion regarding plan design and violate the FAB?

If so, could the TPA or consultant or vendor make the request to modify the plan in order to avoid employer discretion?

Thanks for your thoughts!

I had heard early on (from Relius pros, I believe) that it was expected that the DOL would extend the 10/15/10 deadline for 12/31/09 year end plans, at the last minute. I understand the DOL decided not to give a blanket extension for all plans with a 7/31/10 due date. But is it expected that there will be an extension on the 10/15/10 deadline? Any updates that I am not aware of?

Our DB Pension Plan has a PPT who will soon hit his early retirement date under the Plan and who currently has 5 QDROs properly entered by the court and qualified by the Plan over the course of the last several years. 3 of the 5 QDROs relate to the same Alternate Payee, which in this case is the PPT's child. All of these QDROs allow the AP to receive her benefit at any time after PPT's early retirement date under the Plan.

PPT calls Plan to request his early retirement benefit. When informed that his benefit is frozen due to the 5th and final QDRO (which is currently being processed), he claims that he never received ANY of the QDROs, nor did he receive the accompanying Determination Letters sent by the Plan qualifying the Orders. All QDROs and letters were sent to the most recent address the Plan has on file for him (which he claims is very outdated).

PPT claims that 3/5 QDROs referred to above "are wrong" and that he doesn't owe nearly that much in child support. We explain that the Orders met the requirements of ERISA, were duly qualified by the Plan and sent to his most recent address on file. We explain that AP can get money at any time after his early retirement date unless he sends us an amended court-entered order before that date (which is unlikely at this point).

Does anyone think that Plan can justifiably withhold payment to the AP for a certain period of time (say, 30 days) to give PPT an opportunity to get a revised court order? But then, what if he continues to request extensions? And what if AP demands payment? My first thought is that the Plan may be better off complying with court-orders that tell Plan that AP can get money at any time and leaving them to battle it out themselves. What are your thoughts? Thanks very much.

Employer has self-insured medical plan for the bulk of its employees. Employer also has a rich insured "executive-only" policy. Will eliminating the executive-only policy, which would cause the executives to begin to participate in the self-insured plan, make the self-insured plan lose its grandfathered status under the "anti-abuse" provision of the interim final grandfather regulations?

Hopefully, I am hitting the points I need to here -

Company A (Seller) has 4 (1-4) units participating in one pension plan, each through a separate CBA with a separate unit, each unit performing a slightly different service.

Company B (Buyer) wants to, wants to purchase unit 1's through an asset sale. The sale of unit 1 will not trigger a partial withdrawal for the Seller under the 70% decline rules. B is deciding whether or not to continue participation in the pension fund, but probably doesn't want to be in the pension plan for the long term.

If there is no 4204 asset sale, I am wondering if A will have a partial withdrawal triggered under the pension plan under the partial cessation rules. 4204 offers protection from a complete or partial withdrawal. Is the only contemplated (and maybe necessary) partial withdrawal protection under 4204 a 70% decline? Or does the 4204 protection somehow extend to the cessation rules? The Seller will not continue to perform the type of work covered under the CBA 1 unit and it will not transfer work performed at the facility covered by 1 to another facility in the Seller's control group. (but as an alternative, I guess it could have a non union operation in the jurisdiction of the CBA, and this is where the 4204 protection might come into play).

Under the cessation rules, the law says the employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute, but the employer continues to perform work in the jurisdiction of the CBA, or closes the facility and transfers work to another location. Does the cessation test look at whether the Buyer continues work the CBA covered work in the jurisdiction, or only the seller?

A and B are in separate control groups.

If the answer is that there is assessment due to cessation, is there any reason why B would agree to a 4204 asset sale?

Thanks.

Does anyone know of any good articles summarizing considerations for preparing a distribution policy?

Pre-tax Employee Contributions are mandatory as a condition of employment. According to sungard, these should be treated as nonelective contributions. Also, the employer makes a "matching" contribution for those employees not making the mandatory contribution.

In this particular plan, TIAA will NOT accept money unless a form has been signed by the participant. client has not been as good as they should be about forcing them to fill out the form, so there are a good number of people not making these contributions.

Can I treat this as a coverage issue? Because the participants did not make the mandatory contribution, the would not be entitled to the match. All of the people who are not making the contributions were provided with the TIAA Forms. I'm honestly not sure what they've done from that point forward but certainly no one was let go on account of this.

My other concern is that the program would not be treated as mandatory deferrals, which would mean that they would be considered ELECTIVE deferrals, which in turn means they are subject to 402g, and there are people in the plan doing the full 402g limit in a separate tda.

A Plan maintains neither a FSCOB nor a PFB. Must the actual return on assets be determined? If not, would you simply report an actual return of 0.00% on SB?

Plan started 5/1/09, and is a 12/31 year end, we received schedule A info from insurance carrier for the policy which ran from 5/1/09 through 4/30/10, ending persons covered was 167.

Do I complete the Sch. A insurance carrier policy / contract year as ending 4/30/10? I reviewed this and it is my understanding that contracts are reported in the plan year that they end, if so then this policy would not be reported until 2010...is this correct?

Thanks for any help.

It looks like we may get a break for 2010 from freezing benefits as long as the 2008 AFTAP was at least 80%.

So for example, if you have a calendar year plan and your 2008 AFTAP was 85% and you did not get a certified AFTAP for 2009 and 2010, benefit accruals would not be frozen until 10/1/2011 unless your 2011 AFTAP was certified at 80% or more by that date. Of course the other benefit restrictions would apply.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Is there anything special that needs to be done?

Can anyone comment on the pros and cons of maintaining grandfathered status for a health plan? Is losing the plan's grandfathered status that much of a negative?

We were asked to review a DB that has been frozen for about 8 years. It seems as though the Employer had no interest in making any more contributions.

Aparently the only people still in the plan as of the current year are those who were in the plan as of the freeze date. when I asked the employer why no one has come into the plan since the freeze date, I was told the previous administrator told him since no new participants would accrue any benefits, they were not participants.

Proper 204(h) notices were given, the plan was amended to cease benefit accruals and all required as well as optional amendments have been prepared and signed.

The employer has received a letter from IRS that the plan is being audited for 2008.

Any ideas on how to proceed - they do not want to use the current administrator, some disagreement over fees!

Client contributed approx. $50,000 above minimum in 2008 (1st year of plan, BOY val date). But since the funded ratio for 2008 is technically 0% can this prefunding balance not be used to offset the minimum required for 2009?

We have a participant who is in quite a tough spot. She is making next to nothing every week, her husband died as well as her son within the past year. She is running out of liquid assets and she already has an existing loan for $28,000 or so. The loan is nowhere near maturity and she essentially cannot pay it.

What options would she have at this point? Would this qualify as a hardship if it technically does not fit into the safe harbor rules? Could she avoid the 10% penalty if she had the funds in her account to take a hardhsip. She cannot take another loan; it would put her over 50% of her total account balance.

If anyone has any experience with this, I would appreciate any feedback, suggestions, etc.

Thanks.

Pursuant to my reading of the PPACA regulations, it appears that dental and/or vision benefits that are offerred under a spearate insruance policy or contract would not be benenfits subject to the age 26 requirement as now imposed under PPACA and the issue about whether the benefits are an "intergral part" of a group health plan is simply irrelevant for purposes of this analysis.

Thoughts on this opinon are appreciated.

Is it necessary and useful to provide a SAR if each participant is self directing their entire account, receives statements and has on line access?

I suppose the SAR would provide info re: bonding.

thanks

Has anyone used the Streamlined VCP Appendix F, Schedule 4 to correct an ineligible employer's sponsorship of a SIMPLE IRA? Specifically, Employer became part of a controlled group via stock purchase in 2004. One entity has a profit sharing plan. The other has a SIMPLE IRA. I know about the 2-year tranisition period following an asset sale, but we are beyond that time.

My question is.....the Streamlined VCP application gives the proposed correction method of simply ceasing all SIMPLE contributions. There is an option to ask the IRS to approve retaining the SIMPLE money in the IRA accounts rather than distributing as excess. Has anyone been successful with this?

Also, the other entity has a profit sharing plan. The employer either wants to: (1) terminate the PSP and put everyone under the SIMPLE, or (2) terminate the simple and add everyone under the PSP - maybe convert to a 401(k) safe harbor. I know option one would have been available during the transition period, but that is gone. If they elect option two, do they have to wait until the beginning of the year to add the employees to the PSP. Since the SIMPLE would be terminated as a matter of law, it may be allowable if the PSP allows. Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Here is the situation:

Employee worked for company "A" in the 1980s and was a participant in an ESOP. Employee left company "A" and the company was acquired by company "B", who was subsequently acquired by company "C". Company "C" has no information about company "A's" ESOP. Any idea how the former employee could get access to this ESOP?

Please respond if you have filed an EPCRS for a multiple employer defined benefit plan. I am interested in discussing compliance fees.

Thank you!

I always get confused with these tests.....

Here is the situation (3 Plans):

1) 401(k) Plan with Match (with multiple match formulas) and 2 separate PS contributions (3% and 4.5%)

2) MPP Plan with service based formula

3) 401(k) Plan with Match

Everything passes coverage on its own (taking the CG into consideration) except the 4.5% contribution. I can "aggregate" the 3% & 4.5% to pass the ratio test. Doing this would then require General Testing. Question: for the General Test-do I just include the 3 & 4.5% contribs or do I need to include the MPP contribution? If I don't include the MPP, it is subject to its own General Test, Correct?

For BRF, I would "test" each level within the first plan and count the level in the 3rd plan as not benefiting? In other words, they would be in the denominator of the counts? Or do I have to "test" their level against plan #1's?