Have any of you NFL Fans reviewed the NFL Channel's 100 Greatest Players of All Time.

The top five were:

1. Jerry Rice

2. Jim Brown

3. Lawrence Taylor

4. Joe Montana

5. Walter Payton

Johnny Unitas was number 6.

What I found to be interesting was not so much the list results, but the process they used in determining the list.

Two part question:

1) There are two companies who are a control group and it would be more beneficial to test separately. For coverage purposes how should a Non-Key HCE be treated who has compensation from both companies and participated in both plans?

Company A has a total of 9 HCEs including him.

Company B has a total of 3 HCEs including him.

For Co. A’s coverage test would it be 9 HCE Benefiting and Co. B 3 HCEs Not Benefiting or only 2?

2) Second question, if Co. A fails the coverage test, can a corrective amendment be adopted to bring in enough NHCEs to pass Coverage so that the 2 plans can still be tested separately?

Hello everyone:

I have a tricky medical leave and hours of service question. Participant died a year ago from an unsuccessful surgery while he was on medical leave. The plan language does not allow an employee to vest if the employee goes on leave, accumulates 1000 hours while on leave, and dies before returning to work. Essentially, the employee must return to work for at least a day to receive vesting credit for his leave time.

The critical language in the Plan states that:

“The employment of an Employee whose approved Leave of Absence is terminated without his returning to regular employment with the Company shall be terminated effective at the commencement of such Leave of Absence.”

As a result, participant's last day of employment for plan purposes is considered to be when he went on leave, not when he died.

Is it consistent with the Code and regs to do that?

Looking for an IRS ruling that an interest rate is requried when making a loan from a 401(k) Plan. My Client wants to offer a "0%" interest rate loan to the employee's.....

Does anyone have any inside information on how soon we might see guidance for In-Plan Roth conversions?

I'm looking for help in completing the PBGC Attachment B (Misssing Participant Individual Information)

We have about 12 participants with lump sums over 5,000 and not sure what category to mark on Part III. 3a.

I believe it is either 4(a) or 4(b).

Can someone please tell me - what is methodolgy 29 CFR 4050.5(a)(3) and methodoly 29 CFR 4050.5(a)(1).

Thank you,

JBY

Any way to log in anonymously to post a question? "Paranoia runs deep

On preparing a Form 1099-R, what is the code for a hardship distribution? 2? Thanks.

mother of the bride

flower girl dress

cheap prom dresses

This is the first time that we have a plan that is going to be adding matching to the

safe harbor non-elective.

If accrual requirements (hours or last day) are added to the matching contribution

does that negate the ADP safe harbor? Or does it just require that ACP testing must be done?

H & W obtain divorce decree in State X, awarding W part of H's benefits in Plan in State Y.

Rather than obtain QDRO from State X's divorce court, W has the State X divorce decree 'domesticated' in State Y, where the Plan and Plan Administrator are. Pursuant to the divorce decree, the State Y judge then enters the QDRO.

Is this acceptable? Should the Plan Administrator insist on a QDRO be issued by the State X divorce judge?

Would you use the code for pre-approved plan in either (or both) of the following cases:

1. Plan has adopted a Volume Submitter document, but has special language that makes it not

a word for word adoption. The special language is not extensive, if that makes a difference.

The plan will not be submitted for a determination letter.

2. Same as above, but the plan has been submitted and has received a determination letter.

IRA holder dies without naming a beneficiary under his IRA. The spouse is the sole beneficiary of the estate and the executor. There are a bunch of private letter rulings that say the spouse can roll the money into his/her own IRA, but has the IRS ever come out with a public ruling on this matter? This happens so often, that you'd think the IRS would have made some public comments about this issue.

If a plan is started in Nov. but made effective going back to 1/1 can an HCE still defer 5% of annual compensation? It seems that the NHCEs would only defer a very small percent of their annual comp and I just want to make sure I can use the annual comp for the owner.

Rev. Proc. 93-42 1.01 states "Specifically, the guidance applies for purpose of substantiating that a plan satisfies the following requirements:...and nondiscrimination with regard to an alternative definition of compensation under section 1.414(s)-1(d)(3) of the Income Tax Regulations....Unless specifically provided otherwise, this revenue procedure does not apply to the special nondiscriminatory amounts test under section 401(k)(3) or (m)(2)." Section 5 of this rev. proc provides the standards under which an employer can rely on a prior year's test but it seems to be excluding the ADP/ACP tests...

Ok...so does that mean

If a plan is required to perform a 414(s) compensation test because they use a non-safe harbor definition of compensation for their 401k and 401m test (test compensation), are they required to perform this test on an annual basis? (The compensation used for their 401k and 401m test is the same as their eligible plan compensation.) Or can they complete 414(s) testing every 3 years?

Are HSAs ever treated as property of the employer subject to claims of its creditors?

We administered a plan that terminated this year with final distributions processed in September 2010. We received a letter this week from a participant's attorney returning the check (a net check after tax withholding) explaining the participant is currently going through a divorce and to reinstate the balance. We contacted the investment platform and they will not do anything as the account has been closed. We contacted the plan sponsor and they were not aware of the divorce proceedings until after the distribution was processed.

I feel like we need to return the check to the attorney and say too bad, consider this disposition as part of the total disposition of the parties, but am curious if someone might think differently.

All responses greatly appreciated.

I really don't know much about this, and wondered whether others had some experience. Typically, when a plan sponsor goes bankrupt, they terminate services with us, and our involvement thereafter is minimal.

But let's say, for example, that a 401(k) plan sponsor goes bankrupt - Chapter 11. Let's further assume that it is a 3% nonelective safe harbor. What happens if the bankruptcy Trustee says, say for the 2009 plan year, that the 3% won't be made? I guess what I'm trying to ask is does bankruptcy override the normal plan provisions? If you file for a plan termination for 2010, would the plan termination likely be approved on its status completely disregarding the requirements for a 3% contribution? What happens if it is a safe harbor matching plan, and the match isn't made - do you have to then do ADP testing?

It seems logical that the plan would not be disqualified if the reason for certain failures is that there is a court approved bankruptcy. But is that how it really works?

Etc., etc... and thanks in advance for any insights.

Based on the definition of required beginning date it appears that the participant must begin receiving distributions if he was an owner during the calendar year he turned 70 1/2. however what if he subsequently sells his shares and is no longer an owner. ERISA outlines say that he would have to continue receiving RMD's. do you all agree with this or can he stop after he sells his interest?

When forcing out people with less than 5K via auto rollovers, when you tell them you'll kick them out if they don't respond, do you tell them the IRA will be with Penchecks? Or is it the name of the actual custodian.

I'm curious how others have handled it.

PS plan with the following proposed groups. Do you see any issues with this? Let's asume that based upon the particular census involved, it wouldn't result in any potential ADEA violations. It seems to me that this is ok.

Group 1 - All employees not defined in another group

Group 2 - Highly compensated employees who own less than 3 %

Group 3 - Highly compensated employees who own 3 - 16.5 % and Key employees who will have 30 or more years of participation from date of entry to normal retirement date.

Group 4 - Highly compensated Key employees who will have less than 30 years of participation from date of entry to normal retirement date.