Does workers compensation count as compensation (in which the ee could have deferrals withheld and contributions allocated based on that comp)? I am 99.9% sure that it does not since it is not being paid by the ER.

Thanks,

If a plan amends to allow "in-plan" Roth conversions, can they exclude terminated participant from the option? Any thoughts appreciated.

I was wondering if it would be possible to avoid IRC 105/125 discrimination by just creating a different plan for the highly compensated. This doesn't seem like it would work, but the sections just refer to a single plan, which suggests that you could have a different plan with different benefits. Can't different groups like collectively bargained employees have different benefits than salaried nonunion? So why can't salaried nonunion have different groups? What am I missing? Thanks in advance.

Employer A & Employer B have common ownership, but not sufficient to be a controlled group. They aren't an affiliated service group either. They each sponsor their own plan.

Every so often employees will switch between the two companies. Is there any issue with each plan recoginizing service with the other employer? These aren't really predecessor employers, but I don't see an issue with it. Want to make sure thay I am not missing something though.

Thanks in advance for any guidance.

What if health plan A eliminates spouse coverage if the spouse has another available group health plan? Or eliminates coverage for spouse and/or dependents entirely? Does this cause health plan A to lose grandfathered status?

Elimination of coverage for groups of individuals/beneficiaries does not seem to be one of the listed events that causes the loss of grandfathered status. Yet, that result is counter-intuitive to me, since that would permit individuals to be dropped until the plan becomes, for example, for officers only--yet, if it still a grandfathered plan despite the elimination of eligibility, then it would not be subject to the non-disrimination rules even though it became a discriminatory plan.

What am I missing?

If a Plan has QJSA and an RMD must be taken, does the participant need to complete a form (with spousal consent) or can the recordkeeper force the RMD?

If the Plan Document's definition ofcompensation is W-2 + 401k deferrals, and a participant is haveing pre-tax contributions deducted from his paycheck to go towards an HSA, are those deductions added back into compensation as well for employer contribution calculations?

Disclaimer - I do not work in the Documents department. Am wondering if an SMM would be required for an amendment such as the Final 401(k) Amendment or The Mandatory Distribuiton Amendment?

Thx

If a Plan has QJSA and an RMD must be taken, does the participant need to complete a form (with spousal consent) or can the recordkeeper force the RMD?

Question - Is spousal consent required for a RMD?

Can someone confirm this for me: A plan only gets one bite at the apple to make an assessment of withdrawal liability. In other words, if you assess at 1 million, you cannot go back and assess at 1.5 million.

Please provide citations.

I hope this gets explained correctly, but I'll give it my best shot. I have a client with a 401 (k) Plan. The other day I get a call from "an employee" of my client that wants to enroll in the plan and I cannot locate this guy on the plan's census. This client manages real estate properties and the "employee" actually gets paid from a condo association of the property that is managed by the client. His paycheck comes from the association, but he is managed by my client as part of the agreement with the association. There is no employee leasing agreement. There are no related group issues.

It appears to me that this individual is an employee of the condo association, but I need to be reassured of that fact. Should there be any other questions that I need to ask my client, or is it clear that he is not an employee of my client.

Here's the scenario:

1. Disqualified person exercises put option with respect to qualifying employer securities distributed from ESOP.

2. Employer does not wish to purchase the qualifying employer securities from the disqualified person.

3. ESOP provides employer may permit trustee of ESOP to purchase the qualifying employer securities.

Question: Even though the ESOP provides the employer may permit trustee to purchase qualifying employer securities when participant exercises put option, wouldn't the trustee doing so when the participant exercising the option is a disqualified person result in a prohibited transaction? Is there a way for the trustee to honor the put option and yet avoid a prohibited transaction? Or must the employer honor the put option since the trustee may not do so?

When does the PPA restatement cycle begin? Does it begin immediately after the Cycle E for EGTRRA?

Hello.

Particpant passes away. Did not have a beneficiary form. The deceased is not married and has no children.

What happens to the money? Is there a next in line?

Thanks.

Company has a 401(k) plan covering Union Employees

The Union Contract dictates the ER contribution by a set formula that $ per week.

Employee was on Disability for a month of the plan year and then terminated.

He had NO regular compensation - just workers comp.

Since he had no pay, the union contract said he gets the ER portion.

What about the 415 Limit - he has no pay and a contribution?

Pat

We have a safe harbor plan that has a non-adopting controlled group member who according to our document would have all employees automatically excluded from participating in the plan. We are running into the argument of whether this eliminates them from safe harbor status since these excluded employees are not receiving the same level of benefit as the other employees.

Can we rely on the safe harbor as long as they pass coverage under the 410(b) ratio test?

Employer wants to allocate a 7% PS contribution to all eligible participants. The document has a last day requirement for the allocation condition - all active and terminated participants will receive the 3% safe harbor contribution.

If the gateway/non-discrimiation testing are not required, must the terminated participants still receive a gateway minimum?

I'm wondering if there is anything preventing a plan from adding an amendment stating that for purposes of vesting, etc., an employee who dies while on leave is treated as if the employee returned to work on the day before he died? I would like the plan to add something similar to the provision in USERRA for active duty military personnel. I'm just wondering if there would be any conflicts with the Code if the plan did this?

Thanks

Whenever we prepare a distribution package for a participant who has QJ&S (usually merged MP plans these days), we run a calculation to give all the options specifically calculated for that participant's balance. However, someone recently asked me why I bothered with that, and that I could just give an example.

This had never ocurred to me. Any thoughts on how legit this is?

Plan has 139 participants at the BOY in 2008, 126 in 2009, and 118 for 2010, so the plan falls under the audit requirements for those years and the Schedule H filed.

However, we are estimating that the count will be about 90-95 participants as of the BOY for 2011. It is my understanding that if the count falls below 100, the audit is not required, is this correct (some disagreement in our office, some say must be below 80 to get out of audit)?

For the 2011 year which Schedule will need to be filed the H or I? Or is there a choice do to the 80-120... I believe they could file the I because there is no audit required...

Thanks all!