Plan was terminated effective 1/31/2009. What compensation period do I use for the ADP tesT? Just January, or full year pay? I cannot find anything on point...

How does the minimum coverage test apply to 401(k) and (m) portions of a plan? Reg sec. 1.410(b)-8(a) seems to provide that the 401(k)/(m) portions must pass the test as of the last day of the plan year, but Rev. Proc. 93-42 sec. 3.08 provides that a plan with salary reduction and matching contributions can use snapshot testing (as of any day of the plan year) to comply with the minimum coverage testing requirement. Which day (last day or snapshot day chosen by employer) should be the testing day?

A prospect appears to have been filing a Form 5500 for their 457(b) plan by somehow combining it with their 403(b) plan's Form 5500. It appears that the initial 120-day DOL filing after the plan was executed had not been done for the 457(b), so the 5500 filing is required.

I see no reference on the Form 5500 instructions for items to complete or not complete for a 457(b) plan. Any idea what actually would need to be completed for a 457(b) plan Form 5500?

Have you ever heard of filing a 5500 where both the 403(b) and the 457(b) plan names are both listed for the plan?

Client has 2 employees. One owner, other not. Both are HCE.

If the client elects TOP PAID GROUP ELECTION, who is in the top of the test?

Number of employees equals 2. 20% of 2 is 0.4. Rounding up the count is 1. Is this 1 in addition to the owner, so my HCE count would still be 2 or is the count just 1 and the owner take that spot.

Can I get a discussion on this?

Has anyone heard of a mulit-employer plan, which either requires or allows the union members to contribute to the actual pension fund? I have had a couple client say they swear they paid into the pension plan, but I think they are confusing union dues with pension contributions. Any thoughts?

One of my clients received a Benchmark Survey of Financial Services Transactions between U.S. Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons (Form BE-180). The survey must be completed by 10/1/2010. Do you know if this form should be completed by the financial institution (i.e., Recordkeeper & Trustee) or the client.

Hello - For 403(b) purposes, compensation under 415 is defined as "includible comepsnation". Includible compensation for ministers is in turn, defined in the 403(b) regulations as earned income under 401(c0(2). That section refers to 1402 which in in subsection 8, includes the housing allowance. This is inconsistent with everything else that I have read, including the 2001 plr (which was issued before the change by EGTRRA) and is discussed on another thread. Can anyone confirm if I am reading this correctly/incorrectly? Thanks.

Hi -

We offer our employees self-insured medical plans. For 2011 tax year, we will have to report the value of the team member's health insurance coverage on the W-2. Easy enough. However, my quesiton is this... if we were fully-insured, that would involve providing the employer's portion of the full premium. But, we're self-insured. So, do we simply report the employer's portion of the COBRA equivalent or do we need to get deep into the bowels of the plan and determine the amount the company truly paid for the plan (claims, admin fees, etc.) and then divvy up accordingly? I'm assuming (and hoping) it's the former, not the latter.

Thanks.

I realize the law prohibits 401(a) 403(b) plan mergers, but why can't a 401(a) profit sharing only plan be amended to add a 403(b) plan feature and then have a 403(b) only plan merged into the amended 403(b) profit sharing plan?

I have a plan that has the following eligibility and entry date requirements for the match portion of the plan: 1 Year of Service, entering monthly. The match portion of the plan has no allocation conditions for the match allocated on a payroll by payroll basis. Additionally, the match portion of the plan allows for a “true-up” contribution for all eligible participants who are actively employed on the last day of the plan year OR terminated during the year due to death, disability or leave of absence.

Based on the above:

1) The plan has no coverage issue for the match portion of the plan as there is no allocation condition to receive “regular” match. Therefore, disregarding any excluded employees, 100% coverage.

2) The plan has a BRF issue due to the fact that there is an allocation condition related to the match “true-up” contribution.

3) In order to satisfy the BRF testing for the match issue, the plan only needs to satisfy the Availability test.

4) There are two portions to the Availability test: Effective Availability and Current Availability

5) The Effective Availability test is a “facts and circumstances test” and it states, that based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, the group of employees to whom a benefit, right, or feature is effectively available must not substantially favor HCEs. Based on the allocation conditions of the match “true-up”, the plans appears to pass the Effective Availability portion of the Availability test.

6) The Current Availability test is a mathematical test which is run virtually the same way as a ratio test for coverage testing. (The ratios for the NHCEs and the HCEs is calculated by taking the number of participants for who the BRF is available divided by the total number of participants who are not excludable under coverage.) The Current Availability test is passed if the ratio calculated greater than the safe harbor percentage defined in §1.410(b)-4©(4)(iv).

Does anyone disagree with the above six points?

Question: If the plan sponsor excludes a division from it definition of eligible employees (and does not allow them to participate), do they have to be included in the denominator of the BRF ratio calcs? (I think the answer is yes, but would like verification.)

If anyone else has any additional information that they think would be helpful for the above, please feel free to supply it. Thanks in advance.

My company has the 401(k)/Profit Sharing Plan which is the safe harbor plan but the profit sharing plan is subject for 5 year vesting schedule. We have recently done the lay-off that could cause of the partial termination. Question: Will the profit sharing money become fully vested due to the partial termination?

Is it ok to fill in the irs.gov 2009 form 5500ez and print and use it? As opposed to needing to use relius or prosystem, etc.

Unfortunately the irs.gov web site does not have a 2009 schedule sb form. Anyone know where an approved form for printing and submitting to IRS is available? Perhaps it is not available since it is not required to go with 5500ez.

and using dol web site is tedious just for sch sb.

thanks

A one-person DB plan is contemplating investing 92% of its assets in a bond portfolio of high quality bonds that will mature in 2 to 10 years and will have an overall yield of a little over 2%. The participant is age 54 and the plan has a normal retirement age of 62. The plan benefit is 100% of the 415(b)(1)(B) compensation limit. The participant is contemplating this action as part of an overall balanced investment strategy in which the pension plan bears the conservative element. This will facilitate plan assets not exceeding the 415 limit.

Given that 430 discount rates would be expected to be much higher, is there any problem such as unreasonableness of deduction or violation of prudent man rule. Just want to ensure there are no woodpeckers in the wood pile.

If the Plan Administrator and Plan Sponsor are the same person do they need to sign twice on the Form 5500 for 2009? We've always had two signatures on the previous paper filings. It seems with the electronic filing, if one person is both Admin. and Sponsor than they only have to sign as Admin?

Thanks

A controlled group consists of a parent (Company A) and subsidiary organization (Company B). Each entity has its own 401(k) plan. Employees of Company A are eligible to participate only in the Company A Plan and employees of Company B are eligible to participate only in the Company B Plan. Company A Plan provides richer benefits than Company B Plan. Is it correct to count only Company A employees as eligible employees when running the ADP and ACP tests for the Company A Plan and only Company B employees as eligible employees when running the tests for the Company B Plan? In other words, assuming the two plans separately satisfy the minimum coverage test, is it correct to assume that exclusion of Company B employees from eligibility in the richer Company A Plan should not affect Company A Plan's ability to pass the ADP/ACP tests? In addition, is there any reason why these two plans might be considered one plan for testing purposes (i.e., mandatory aggregation)?

I hope this is a simple question. I am foggy on it for some reason.

Brand new plan. Signed and effective February 1, 2010. We know PPA amendments are due on the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2009. Plan year here is calendar year.

Even though it won't be a full plan year, is the PPA deadline the last day of the 2010 plan year or December 31, 2010?

Then, when are the 2010 amendments due?

Add to that, I'm filing for a DL. If I amend, won't I have to restate, and won't all this blow the client's head off?

Propose: file for DL. Then, stand alone amendment for PPA before 12/31/2010. Done.

My boss read somewhere that a regulation was passed this summer allowing Roth conversions within the plan. I cannot find anything regarding this. Is this still in the proposal phase and not officially passed? Does anyone have a link to information regarding this?

Thanks!

I have an employee who waived all health coverage at open enrollment in May. The employee married and had a baby in July and her spouse lost his job and medical coverage in August. The employee submitted a QE change form in September requesting enrollment of self, spouse and baby in medical and self and spouse in dental, and checked off all three QE reasons: birth, marriage, and termination of spouse employment.

The employee was outside of the 30-day window to allow enrollment due to a change in marital status or a change in the number of dependents, and barely met the deadline for termination of spouse employment. My question is since the employee previously waived all coverage and her spouse was the only family member who lost other coverage (medical only), can we allow the employee to enroll herself, her spouse and her baby in medical, and herself and her spouse in dental?

To anyone using RGF/Relius Web Client:

In RGF, on the 2009 Plan Information Worksheet, under Signers, Service Providers, & Interested Individuals, are you checking the boxes "Rank" or "Enable Web Client Workflow"?

In Relius general FAQs, there's a question dated 5/7/10 that says:

"the Rank or Enable Web Client Workflow fields should NOT be selected at this time".

I'm just wondering if this is still the relevant answer today...or if it matters if they're checked anymore?

Anyone know?

thanks!

For your viewing pleasure:

Proofreading is a dying

art, wouldn't you say?

Man Kills Self Before Shooting Wife and Daughter

>This one I caught in the Tribune the other day and called the Editorial

>Room and asked who wrote this. It took two or three readings before the

>editor realized that what he was reading was impossible!!! They put in a

> correction the next day.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just couldn't help but send this along. Too funny.

>Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says

> Really? Ya think?

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers

> Now that's taking things a bit far!

>

> -----------------------------------------------------------

>Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over

> What a guy!

>---------------------------------------------------------------

>

>Miners Refuse to Work after Death

> No-good-for-nothing' lazy so-and-so's!

>------------------------------------------------------

>

>Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant

>See if that works any better than a fair trial!

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

>War Dims Hope for Peace

> I can see where it might have that effect!

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

>

> If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last Awhile

> Ya think?!

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures

> Who would have thought!

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

>

>Enfield ( London ) Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide

>They may be on to something!

>------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>Red Tape Holds Up New Bridges

> You mean there's something stronger than duct tape?

> ----------------------------------------------------------

>

>Man Struck By Lightning: Faces Battery Charge

>He probably IS the battery charge!

>----------------------------------------------

>

>New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group

>Weren't they fat enough?!

>-----------------------------------------------

>

>Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Spacecraft

>That's what he gets for eating those beans!

> ---------------- ---------------------------------

>

>Kids Make Nutritious Snacks

> Do they taste like chicken?

>****************************************

>

> Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half

> Chainsaw Massacre all over again!

> ***************************************************

>

>Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors

> Boy, are they tall!

> *******************************************

>

>And the winner is....

>Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead

>

>Did I read that right?