As I sat thru various sessions at the ASPPA Conference, it occurred to me that the PPA funding rules are fundamentally sound. i.e. min contrib is based on the value of current year's accrual, plus amortization of any existing shortfall.

But things went awry in the details, and we're left with a stunningly confusing and unworkable system. I get the sense that the IRS and other govt officials are as confused and frustrated as many of us are.

I'm thinking we should take a proactive approach, and draft a comprehensive proposal to simplify the system. Just a few ideas off the top....

- Trash the Effective Interest Rate concept, and substitute the middle segment rate.

- Trash the adjustment of COB/PFB for actual investment earnings, and use the middle segment rate.

- Trash the concept of 1/2 lump sums for 60%-80% AFTAP. Switch to no LS's if < x%, and full LS's if > x%.

- Simplify or trash the Annual Funding Notice, which gives a ridiculous amount of useless info to the participants.

- Trash the concept of deemed AFTAPs on 4/1 and 10/1 each year, and the associated notices to participants.

etc. etc.

Any thoughts?

.. Scott

Consider a partnership with 3 owners. No other employees.

Is there any way to set up a SEP covering just one of the owners?

My experience with SEPs is limited, but I'm under the impression that a SEP must cover all employees who have been with the company for a few years. Is there some sort of custom SEP plan that allows for the exclusion of certain HCEs?

Thx,

Scott

How long are plans typically taking to provide estimates of withdrawal liability?

I could probably get some data and apply the plan's allocation methodology and arrive at a ballpark number, but does anyone know if it's possible to get an informal, off the record range from the plan (by phone), before a formal estimate is provided?

The trustee of a plan died. The plan is terminating. The mother of the trustee has taken over as trustee.

There was no beneficiary form on file. The distribution for the trustee will be made out to his estate.

The investment company is holding up the distributions because they want his mother and father to sign the forms since they are co-representatives on the estate. Does the investment company need both signatures or is just one of them o.k. to do the distributions? The distribuiton for the Trustee is not being made out to an individual - but to his estate.

Is it possible for an employer (with 13 employees) to set up a self-insured MRP for a single non-HCE?

Is it correct that the failure of such a plan to pass 105(h) discrimination testing would be that benefits provided to HCEs under the plan would be taxable? But if no HCEs benefit under the plan, is this a problem? Would the NHCE/participant be able to exclude benefits under the plan from income?

An employee elected to defer $25 per paycheck in mid-2006. His deferrals were never taken from salary; plan has been Safe Harbor (basic match formula) for the whole time. He terminated employment earlier this year. He never noticed the deferrals were not taken, and called recently for a distribution, only to find he didn't have an account balance.

So, I believe the correction is to have the employer contribute the full match that was missed (+/- gains/losses) and 50% of the missed deferrals as a QNEC (+/- gains/losses).

My question is to the time period which should be looked at. Can we assume that the employEE should have noticed this mistake when filing his 2006 taxes? Or do these corrections need to be made from the date he signed up for deferrals through his termination date?

The examples I've read only seem to refer to a single plan year, in which the examples seem to assume that the error was noticed after the year ended, as opposed to after the employment ended (3 years later).

Thanks in advance.

Does anyone have any best practices for 401(k) recordkeeping shops or benchmarking information? Mostly pertaining to 401(k) websites and call centers.

Thanks!

The IRS Final 436 regs. warn in effect that the IRS is unhappy with plan sponsors who in the IRS eyes are failing to obtain certifications to deny distribution of lump sum benefits. They cite referance to 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-6(b) which basically says funding is within the control of the employer so this may not be used to deny 411(d)(6) protected benefits.

I would take this to mean that the restrictions on HCEs a la 404(a)(4) are permitted so long as the plan specifies the criteria. Of course, with all the dilly dalling which now allows at-will changing of interest rates and asset valuation methods, the employer may elect to make changes or not elect to make changes that would alter the plan's funded % to above or below 110%, or above or below 80% for that matter.

The issue is PPA is pretty clear about 436 restrictions and the IRS is attempting to work around it. This will be interesting because to my knowledge there is no legal requirement that an actuarial valuation (say of a calendar year plan) must be performed before October 1 so that it's feasible that the AFTAP cannot be certified by October 1 because the work hasn't been completed. This could arise unintentionally say if the actuary of record has departed before completing the actuarial valuation and/or issuing the certification and is not replaced by October 1.

A hospital discounts by 20% the employee share of bills for hospital services if the employee is covered under the hospital's self-funded health benefits plan. The discount also applies to the employee's spouse and dependent children if they are covered under the plan. The discount is applied by the hospital's billing office at the back end, not at the front end. For example, assume $1000 in covered services. A claim for $1000 is submitted to the health plan, which pays $800. The employee share, as shown on the EOB, is $200. The hospital's billing office then applies a 20% discount and bills the employee for $160 rather than $200.

Is the hospital and/or its health plan running afoul of the Medicare secondary payer rules? If hospital plan's EOBs are submitted to Medicare to pay secondary, it seems to me that we have a problem as the EOB overstates the portion of the claim that the employee is paying. Can anyone direct me to any MSP regulation or other guidance that prohibits (or permits) this practice?

Any thoughts about other legal issues the hospital should be concerned about. Thanks.

If a plan reduces it's cash out threshhold to $1,000 does that mean spousal consent is needed on distributions over $1,000 or does it remain at the $5,000 mark (assume the QJSA is the normal form of benefit)?

Does anyone out there an EAP provider (or work with one)? Are you gearing up to provide the enhanced schedule C information to your clients? Alternatively, do you have an EAP provider? Are you requesting Schedule A or Schedule C information?

I have been talking to an EAP client who is trying to determine its obligations to provide information to its clients for 5500 reporting. The services the EAP provides are probably subject to ERISA (due to providing some counseling services) but the client is not an insurance company (thus no Schedule A). Most, if not all, of the client's clients pay for the EAP services out of general assets and no plan assets are typically used (thus, no Schedule C).

I suppose it is possible that a client could adopt a very unusual plan design that would result in plan assets being used to pay for the EAP services, but I think that possibility is probably remote. Consequently, I think the EAP provider's obligations to provide information are probably pretty low. Any thoughts on this?

A question revisited in the context of WRERA.

Plan uses 5 year rule (only) for RMDs to nonspouse beneficiaries.

Q&A 17©(2) of IRS Notice 2007-7 provides that the nonspouse beneficiary may determine the RMD "under" the plan using the LE rule if distribution is made before the end of the year following the year of participant's death. Kinda sounded like the plan had to use the LE rule if the nonspouse beneficiary applied for distribution in year 1 following the death, but not in year 0 or years 2-4. If so, notwithstanding the plan terms providing for the 5 year rule, the plan would have to implement procedures to calculate a RMD in year 1 (only) under the LE rule and offer a direct rollover only for the balance of the distribution in excess of RMD.

IRS 2-13-07 employee plan news special edition explains this stating that the nonspouse beneficiary may "treat" the plan as using the LE rule for determining the amount eligible for rollover and the IRA RMD. Kinda sounded like the plan did not have to apply the LE rule, but nonspouse beneficiary would. The example did not help clarify this by noting "the amount eligible for rollover" must be reduced by the RMD calculated using the LE rule. A tad bit awkward, since a nonspouse beneficiary can only do a direct rollover. Thus, the plan would be offering a direct rollover for an amount the nonspouse beneficiary is not eligible to rollover, and the beneficiary would have to either elect a direct rollover for only the eligible portion of the distribution or take the correct RMD from the IRA after rollover of the entire amount. This requires a pretty savvy beneficiary.

I guess you could boil this down to whether in year 1 the RMD had to be paid by the plan or taken from the IRA (if the nonspouse beneficiary applied for distribution). A number of commentators seemed to lean towards payment of the RMD from the plan. But that was troubling, because the 401(a)(9) regs allow a plan to use only the 5-year rule, and the special LE rule would apply to the plan only if the nonspouse beneficiary actually elected a distribution in year 1 (not the easiest thing to explain to a plan administrator). I can't remember seeing any straight forward guidance on this from the IRS. The one paragraph in the new 402(f) notice is not very useful, noting only that the nonspouse beneficiary will have to receive RMDs from an inherited IRA.

Somehow, I (and a number of my employee benefit friends) generally managed to dance around this issue. In a number of cases, the plans simply did not offer the rollover. In other cases, the nonspouse beneficiaries elected direct payments with the amount eligible for rollover then not at issue. Other cases involved some pretty intensive communication and hand holding or the plan used the LE rule.

Now WRERA makes nonspouse direct rollovers mandatory and requires 20% withholding for direct payments. As a result, it seems that all plans will have to directly answer the basic issue of whether the RMD required by the special rule has to be paid by the plan or taken from the IRA, if for no other reason so as to get the withholding right. If the RMD is to be paid from the plan, in year 1, the 20% mandatory withholding applies only to amount of the direct payment in excess of the RMD. Conversely, if the RMD is to be taken from the IRA, the 20% mandatory withholding applies to the entire direct payment.

Comments (other than are you are insane).

We administer a 401(k) Plan that permits both participant loans and Roth 401(k) deferrals. The current loan policy does not allow for loans to be taken from the Roth money source.

I'm wondering, though, in this plan's case is the Roth 401(k) deferral account still taken into consideration when calculating the maximum available loan or is it excluded since we are excluding the Roth 401(k) deferral money type from loans? Or do we simply define this in our loan policy and apply it uniformly to all participants? The plan document does not say one way or the other.

For example, let's say a participant has a $10,000 account balance consisting of $6,000 is Roth 401(k) deferrals and $4,000 in pre-tax 401(k) deferrals. Is the maximum loan amount $2,000 or is it $4,000? Or what about if the account balance is $10,000 consisting of $6,000 in pre-tax deferrals and $4,000 in Roth 401(k) deferrals, is the maximum loan amount $5,000 or $3,000?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

What is the deadline to amend a defined contribution plan for the PPA Technical corrections aspects of WRERA (elimination of gap period income for excess deferrals; mandatory non-spouse Inherited IRA Rollovers; and remove QDIA requirement for EACA's)?

Is it 12/31/2009 (amendment deadline for PPA) or 12/31/2011 (WRERA Amendment deadline)?

I am hearing conflicting reports.

Has anyone seen, drafted, been involved with or otherwise dealt with drafting model Section 436 language?

If the beneficiary wishes to keep her deceased husband's account in the plan, does this become a distributable event if the account is transferred to her name/ss#? She is not a participant in the plan. 1099R issued? Thanks.

I'm filing a final 5500 after a PBGC takeover due to duress of the sponsor. How is this reported on the 5500 Schedule H? I get that I need to mark 4k as "yes" but where do I show the asset distribution? Transfer of Assets from this plan? Then do I show PGBC as recipient plan? And I assume that the plan is also considered terminated since the employer is no longer the sponsor.

Thanks!

A doctor with employees is terminating his 401(k) plan effective 11/6/09 - plan is calendar year. He is a sole proprietor. No one has made deferrals during the year. He will be required to contribute the SH 3% through 11/6/09 for his eligible employees.

He has taken some money during the year but of course his taxes will not be prepared until into 2010 and he would like the plan paid out before the end of the year. Does he owe anything for himself? When is a sole proprietor's earned income really earned - end of the year?

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

Are Roth conversions done prior / before age 59 1/2 subject to the 10% IRS penalty on the taxes paid on the conversion amount . ?

Plan is on Corbel prototype document. Plan had no age/service requirement for eligibility, but is amended to add age 21/1 year of service. There was no special provision in the adoption agreement to grandfather employees.

If a participant is under 21, does the amendment remove the employees eligibility until age 21 or is his initial entry preserved?

If participant was part-time never working 1000 hours, does the amendment remove eligibility for the employee?