Can a company have a 125 plan with only HCEs. This group employs 5 HCEs and no non-HCEs. My first thought is no because the HCEs would receive 100% of the benefit, however, since they employ no non-HCEs, the plan isn't really discriminating against non-HCEs. Any thoughts or direction would be appreciated. Thanks!

I could be wrong on this, but, I remember reading somewhere, sometime ago that if a company incorporates after the beginning of a year, the Effective Date for the plan could still be established as the first day of that year in order to avoid short yeat limit pro-rations. I have a potential client that will incorporate around September 1st of this year and I was wondering if there was any way the plan's Effective Date could be made January 1, 2010?

Does anyone have an opinion whether it might be a potential violation of ERISA Section 510 for an employer to reduce wages $X/hr. once an employee commences participation in the employer's plan? Would it make a difference if the employee agreed to the reduction in an employment agreement?

Published planbook with attachments (accountant's opinion and schedule of asset at YE). There were no validation warnings prior to submssion so I submitted to DOL. DOL returned an error message, "Filing Unprocessable". Which I understand is NOT considered filed. But I don't know how to correct.

I have no idea why the filing was unprocessable. The Accountant's Opinion and Schedule of Assets were attached as Internal attachments. I can view with no problems. There is no security on the files.

any ideas? Thanks!

I have a plan with a participant whose spouse owns the stock of the sponsoring corporation. He is 65 years old and skiddish about the market and has $400,000 in cash. The corporation needs an operating line for some projects that are on the horizon. Is it a valid investment to loan the corporation money at market rate or is that an implied participant loan and anything in excess of $50,000 would violate the loan provisions???

The Bahamas Bridal Association is comprised of our country’s leading professional destination wedding planners who are all dedicated to excellence and perfection. A certified Bahamas wedding planner is your best source for information on a destination wedding in The Bahamas.

With 700 Islands & Cays dancing in the clear, aquamarine waters of the Tropics, your wedding options are endless. And no one knows the Islands and your options for Bahamas weddings like the members of the Bahamas Bridal Association.

Visit Now:- wedding in bahamas

Advertising link removed.

Is it possible for a multiemployer plan to specify that benefits are to be adjusted so as to avoid having any unfunded liability? I am almost certain there is a misunderstanding, but is anyone aware of a special kind of plan that would allow this?

Money Purchase Pension Plan terminated 4/30/2008. For 2009 Schedule R, can Part II - Funding Information be skipped. From the form istelf-- (If the plan is not subject to the minimum funding requirements of section of 412 of the Internal Revenue Code or ERISA section 302, skip this Part).

My interest here is that the company went bankrupt, and there was a funding deficiency at 12/31/2008 (which will never be paid), and was disclosed on the 2008 Schedule R. For DB plans, I think there is agreement that a Schedule SB is not required in the plan year following the plan year containing the plan termination date, and I also think Part II on Sch R can be skipped for that following year, since the DB plan is not subject to 412 in that following year. Correct?

Any ideas if Part II can be skipped for the money purchase pension plan in this following year similar to the DB plan (not subject to 412).

Plan doc allows Service to count towards eligibility for "Affiliated Employers". For example, Bank A sponsors Plan 1; Bank A Holding Company acquires Bank B. Bank B adopts Plan 1 and Bank B employees' Service counts toward eligibility.

Question: Bank C fails. Bank A takes over Bank C from Regulator (i.e. not an acquisition like Bank B). Bank C employees are now Bank A employees. Employees' Service with Bank C count towards eligibility for Bank A's Plan?

I think not. Any other opinions or determinative guidance on this?

Can a DB plan sell qualifying employer securities to the employer/plan sponsor? I know that the answer lies in the prohibited transaction exemption under ERISA Section 408(e), but I've read it and the regulations several times and can't nail down the proper interpretation. If you assume that the first two requirements (adequate consideration and no commission) are satisfied, it comes down to requirement #3, which says:

(3) if--

(A) the plan is an eligible individual account plan, or

(B) in the case of . . . an acquisition of qualifying employer securities by [a plan which is not an eligible individual account plan], the . . . acquisition is not prohibited by Section 407(a).

Does (B) mean that the exemption applies to a DB plan only if the plan is acquiring securities and it doesn't exceed the 10% limit of Section 407(a) (in other words, the exemption is unavailable for a sale by the plan), or that any acquisition or sale by a DB plan is OK, as long as an acquisition doesn't violate Section 407(a)?

Help!! Thanks!

Line 38 of the 2009 Schedule SB states "Excess contribution for current year (excess, if any, of item 36 over item 37).

Is everyone just taking that statement (37-36) at face value and ALWAYS putting the difference between items 37 and 36 on that line regardless of what the client is actually electing for a pre-funding CB ?

The instructions to Line 38 talk about putting on line 38 the maximum amount the client "may elect" to add to the pre-funding credit balance.

If the client does not want to add to the pre-funding CB are you putting $0 on line 38 or still stating the 37-36 amount and then addressing the amount added to the pre-fundiing CB on item 11(d)(b) on the subsequent year's Sch SB (portion of funding to be added to pre-funding CB) ?

Thanks for any input.

A 401(k) plan allows for plan loans. A participant defaults on the loan (fails to make the required payments), so the loan is treated as a deemed distribution.

Why does the financial statement continue to carry the deemed distribution as an "asset"?

Owner-Participant is required to take a Required Minimum Distribution this year from Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Owner-Participant's accrued benefit, as determined under the Plan's benefit formula, is $850,000. But, because of the Plan's investment losses during 2007-2008, if the Plan were terminated today, the Plan could pay the Owner-Participant only about $450,000. Generally, the RMD is calculated based on the participant's accrued benefit. Is there a reasonable argument for basing the RMD calculation on what the Owner-Participant would actually receive at this time, i.e., the $450,000?

this is one of those reports with 'bells and whistles', so to speak.

its the rate group report (landscape), so if you dare to even want to look at this report, you would rename gndrategrpl.rpt to something else, that way you can always get it back if you don't want this report.

added contrib, comp and % of pay. age and the numbers for the ratio pct test.

so if you print this report and select the HCE with the smallest e-bar you end up with a report sorted by E-Bar (largest to smallest, but not NHCEs who are not in any HCE group)

In addition you get to see what is 'going on' for you'll see a group of nHCEs starting with the youngest, then an HCE, then another batch of NHCEs, the next HCE, etc., but you also see the age ranges of the NHCEs compared with the HCE in the rate group testing.

suppose you gave the NHCEs 1/3 the rate of the HCEs (The HCEs received '3 times' what the NHCEs received)

you would expect the age groupings between the NHCE and HCE to be 13 years (because, if 8.5% interest rate is used you have 1.085 ^ 13 = 2.88 (slightly less than '3 times', but by the time you imput disparity it all works out)

I apologize for the elementary question, but I am preparing Form 5500-SF and its coming up as an error when checking. Total number of participants on 5b is 55. Total number with account balances on 5c is 48. The error is saying that the number on 5c cannot be less than the number of 5b. It is a 401(k) plan that offers a match. I am counting all participants who are eligible whether deferring or not to come up with 55. When I count the number of participants with account balances it is 48. Should I put 55 on 5c?

The instructions on S-F are unclear but the 5500 instructions I believe say the numbers should be the same.

Thank you

We have a client who let a participant take a hardship withdrawal without requiring them to take a loan. The client states that they weren't aware that they had a loan program. They have also not stopped 401k deductions. We have instructed them to stop the deductions now. I assume that this is an operational failure and it should be self corrected. Is this a prohibited transaction? Would we file a 5330 with a 15% penalty on the amount that was distributed in error or does nothing need to be done?

Plan paid out all but 3 participants in '08, the year the company decided to terminate the plan. 2 of the remiaing 3 were paid out in 2009 and the last on 1/5/10. Company closed and there are no remaining employees. A Summary Annual Report doesn't haven't to be prepared for either '09 or '10, correct? I could see preparing an SAR if the Company was alive and well and simply closed the plan but this is a complete close. Thanks.

NQDC plan permits payment upon death, disability, and separation from service. If a participant dies, becomes disabled, or has a separation from service on or after attaining age 65, the plan pays a “Big Benefit.” If a participant has a separation from service on or after attaining age 58, but before attaining age 65, the plan pays a “Little Benefit.” If a participant has a separation from service before attaining age 58, the plan pays no benefit.

Client would like to reduce the age required for a participant to receive the Big Benefit down from age 65 to age 62.

I conclude that lowering this age requirement constitutes a service providers waiver/acceleration of a condition to deferred compensation described under 1.409A-3(j)(1), which would not violate the anti-acceleration rules of 409A.

Based upon these limited fact, does anyone agree, disagree, or have any additional thoughts? All comments are appreciated! Thank you.

It is my understanding that the new regulation means TPA will need to check every FSA, HRA, HSA receipt and prescription. Can TPA audit instead? I.e Only look at a percentage of receipts/prescritptions to ensure people are doing it right?

If there are rules against it, what happens? What do you do (and what is your risk) if you find out your TPA is not checking every receipt.

I have a plan with a bunch of Dr's that all get a 9% new comp allocation. Well...one of the Dr's doesn't want to get the contribution. Is it ok for an HCE to NOT receive this allocation? Or does he not have a choice and must receive it? Any input appreciated!!