Does anyone know of a reason why a plan would not file a schedule SSA for a multiemployer plan? I looked at the instructions to the Schedule SSA and it states..."In general, for a plan to which more than one employer contributes, a participant must be reported on Schedule SSA if: (1) the particiant incurs two successive 1-year breaks in service, and (2) the participant is (or may be) entitled to a deferred vested benefit under the plan."

We have taken over a new multiemployer plan that has over 3,000 participants but didn't have an SSA last year. Only employer contributions are made to the plan. I find it hard to believe out of that many partipants there's no one that doesn't need to be reported on Schedule SSA.

Any thoughts would be appreciated!

I am reviewing a health plan that says that dependents in military service are not covered by the plan. Any prohibitions on such a provision?

I have looked at TRICARE nondiscrimination rules and commentary, and the provision does not on its face violate the TRICARE provisions.

10 U.S.C. §1097c(a) prohibits offering incentives to waive other coverage and take TRICARE--no incentive involved here.

10 U.S.C. §1097c(b) says, "A TRICARE-eligible employee shall have the opportunity to elect to participate in the group health plan offered by the employer of the employee and receive primary coverage for health care services under the plan in the same manner and to the same extent as similarly situated employees of such employer who are not TRICARE-eligible employees." The questionable provision does not affect the opportunity of TRICARE-eligible employees to elect participation to the same extent as non-TRICARE-eligible.

If the SPD was originally written with misleading information and needs to be modified - SMM; how long does the Fidiaciary have until the information must be in the employees' hands? Under current laws.

How are people completing Line 23 of the 2008 SB if they are using 417(e) mortality as required under 1.430(d)-1(f)(4)(iii)?

For most plans that pay lump sums, 1.430 requires you to use the appliciable 417(e) mortality table to determine the funding target. This option doens't fit with any available options under line 23.

Our thought is to check the "prescribed" box, but add a footnote that we are using the table prescribed under 1.430(d)-1(f)(4)(iii).

Anyone have a different opinion?

An owner only plan terminates where say plan assets equal 70% of value of benefits.

436 would not allow full lump sum distribution.

Does anyone know of a practical example where such a plan distributed plan assets? And if there were any consequences, violations, damages, etc.?

Point being, if such a plan distributed lump sum to owner, what might IRS do? Anyone know of ramifications? Actual better than theoretical.

Thanks.

Hi,

I know I have asked this question in some manner before, but I am still having a tough time with this topic.

Plan with multiple match formulas:

Group 1: 50% up to 6%

Group 2: 50% up to 4%

Group 3: 10% up to 8%

Group 4: 50% up to 4%, plus 25% on next 2%

Group 5: No Match

For BRF, would I run the test as such-

Group 5 by itselft

Groups 1&2

Groups 1&4

Group 1

Group 3

Does this make sense?

Thanks for your help!

I understand that if an employee becomes Medicare eligible prior to going on COBRA, they get full access to their COBRA rights.

I also understand that if an employee becomes Medicare eligible after going on COBRA, they lose their COBRA rights. In that event their dependants/spouse would be eligible for up to 36 months of COBRA protection.

How would these rules apply if an employee is not on a group health plan, but selects COBRA on their group dental? Even though Medicare does not have dental, would a terminated employee (who has coverage elsewhere) becoming eligible for Medicare cause that person to lose their COBRA rights regarding the dental plan.?

With 2010 peaking around the corner, has anyone read any articles on the impact on DB plans if the sun sets next year?

well, of course, maybe.

but at least I'll give it try on how to import all that ugly nasty data into the schedule D.

you have to have a file 2pagetwo.3x8 [note, its 3x8 because its a 2008 import. last year it was 3x7]

since you can't attach a file like that on benefits link I renamed it 2pagetwo.xls so you have to rename it back.

doesn't really matter where you store the file as long as you remember where you stored it.

you have to have a file that contains all that useless schedule D info.

I have included a file named schedule D. All you need do is simply edit the names and amounts in the file.

Extremely important is the far far far column AK. you have to have the 3x8 (with the tilde) for every fund you want to import.

finally, I included a powerpoint walk through with screen prints (as best as I can do)

We just took over a profit sharing plan that currently has a GUST prototype document. The client’s EIN ends in “2”. Can we restate their current GUST prototype into an EGTRRA Volume Submitter? The document provider/sponsor for the GUST prototype is different than the document provider/sponsor for the EGTRRA Volume Submitter that we use.

Did the client need to timely execute a Form 8905 in order to restate in the above manner? Your input is much appreciated.

I know, I know--I should post this on the QDRO board. I have, but the traffic on that board is very light, so I thought I would post it here too since it relates to a DB plan.

H retired and elected a 100% J&S annuity under his pension plan. H currently receives about $5,000 per month. H is divorcing W, but wants to provide for her as much as possible, and is willing to provide that, upon his death, W will remain as the beneficiary (based on age, current health and genes, it is more likely that H will die first). Basically, the intent is for each party to receive $2,500 for the rest of H's life, and then upon his death, W will receive $5,000 for the rest of her life.

H's attorney has drafted a proposed QDRO as a separate interest QDRO, giving each party 50% of the present value of the accrued benefit as of the date of divorce, with W to receive a life annuity (or any other optional form under the plan other than a J&S with a future spouse). The QDRO says that "W will be treated as the surviving spouse of H solely to the extent necessary to provide W with a death benefit under the provisions of this Order, and to the same extent any future spouse of H shall not be treated as a spouse of H for such purposes. This provision shall have no effect after W has been paid the amount of plan benefits due to her pursuant to this Order. The death benefit payable to W under the terms of the Plan shall be calculated based on the accrued benefit of H awarded to W in this Order."

The quoted language seems a bit unclear and I'm not sure it clearly states the parties' intent. In any event, wouldn't it be better to do this as a shared interest QDRO, giving each party 50% of the current distribution and provide that W will be treated as H's surviving spouse for all purposes? Not only would it accomplish the intent described above, but it would also allow H to recoup 50% of the benefit in the event that W were to die first, rather than having W's interest go away at her death.

Any thoughts?

H retired and elected a 100% J&S annuity under his pension plan. H currently receives about $5,000 per month. H is divorcing W, but wants to provide for her as much as possible, and is willing to provide that, upon his death, W will remain as the beneficiary (based on age, current health and genes, it is more likely that H will die first). Basically, the intent is for each party to receive $2,500 for the rest of H's life, and then upon his death, W will receive $5,000 for the rest of her life.

H's attorney has drafted a proposed QDRO as a separate interest QDRO, giving each party 50% of the present value of the accrued benefit as of the date of divorce, with W to receive a life annuity (or any other optional form under the plan other than a J&S with a future spouse). The QDRO says that "W will be treated as the surviving spouse of H solely to the extent necessary to provide W with a death benefit under the provisions of this Order, and to the same extent any future spouse of H shall not be treated as a spouse of H for such purposes. This provision shall have no effect after W has been paid the amount of plan benefits due to her pursuant to this Order. The death benefit payable to W under the terms of the Plan shall be calculated based on the accrued benefit of H awarded to W in this Order."

The quoted language seems a bit unclear and I'm not sure it clearly states the parties' intent. In any event, wouldn't it be better to do this as a shared interest QDRO, giving each party 50% of the current distribution and provide that W will be treated as H's surviving spouse for all purposes? Not only would it accomplish the intent described above, but it would also allow H to recoup 50% of the benefit in the event that W were to die first, rather than having W's interest go away at her death.

Any thoughts?

We have a participant (HCE / owner) in a 401(k) Plan that has attained NRA. The plan allows for in-service distributions upon attainment of NRA. One of the investments in his earmarked account is a piece of undeveloped land. The property is (and has always been) appraised annually by an independent third-party appraiser. The participant would like to purchase the land (personally) at the current fair market / appraised value so he can develop the land and eventually live on it.

Can he do the following:

1. Take a distribution of the property from the plan @ FMV (taxed as ordinary income on a Form 1099-R).

OR

2. Apply for a prohibited transaction exemption, and if approved, he can purchase the land outright from personal funds.

Are there any other options? Comments? Thoughts? Red flags?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

6-1999 Consent decree prepared through mediation. Second opinion legal advice obtained. Wife obtained BS, MS, PhD during marriage with no offsets in decree. Wife retains her business with no offsets in decree. Parties to equalize Husbands 401k, Husbands Rollover, Husbands Pension and Wifes IRA.

8-1999 401k split completed.

5-2000 Wife's accountant unable to complete Rollover QDRO.

11-2002 Wife files 3 Motions of Contempt including failure to complete QDRO.

3-15-2003 Judge rules against Wife on all motions, Court assigns attorney to prepare QDRO.

3-18-2003 Husband informs Wife he has retained attorney to prepare QDRO.

8-2003 Husband informs QDRO attorney Wife's IRA account is empty. Wife fails to resolve issue.

1-2008 Wife retains unqualified attorney to complete 2003 QDRO. Attorney seeks to "insert valuation date of 3-21-2003" and demands Husband to sign.

1-2008 Husband retains impartial QDRO lawyer and personal attorney. Attorney finds Husband received faulty legal advice regarding allocation of assets that favor Wife in consent decree.

6-2008 Husband discovers Wife transferred personal IRA subject to a QDRO to her corporate investment account on 3-22-2003.

8-2008 Husband discovers Wife withdrew corporate investment funds to pay personal attorney fees with a corporate check on 4-02-2003.

9-2008 Husband discovers Wife deducted $30,000 of personal attorney fees on her 2004 corporate tax return through a discussion with Wife's second ex-husband. Why did he reveal that when he could be liable for tax evasion? Well, he depreciates himself and he too was easily duped into a decree that favored Wife with nearly all the assets and gave him $50,000 of her credit card debt.

10-2008 Wife's attorney reaffirms valuation date of 3-21-2003 and asks for gains on Husbands asset since that date.

10-2008 Husband's attorney sends letter declaring discovery of 3-22-2003 transfer, 4-02-2003 withdrawal, corporate payment of personal legal fees, and corporate deduction of personal legal fees.

7-2009 Wife files Motion asking Court to approve QDROs with a marital community termination date of 3-21-2003 and without gains after 3-21-2003.

How shall Husband respond to the motion? May Husband request discovery beyond 3-21-2003? If Wife's asset to be divided was spent, does that render a QDRO on that asset void? Shall Husband ask Court to order Wife to produce documents beyond 3-21-2003, such as cancelled checks and corporate tax returns to prove tax evasion? Will the Court dismiss Wife's money laundering and tax evasion as out of their jurisdiction? Husband realizes he was duped in 1999. How may Husband void one or both of the remaining QDRO's (Rollover/IRA and pension)?

Thanks, Doug

Apparently, in an argument against the use of sex-based premiums, the state of Maryland's actuary argued:

"We cannot conclude from data showing that women as a group live on average longer than men as a group that any individual woman lives longer than a man of the same age^*."

An extrapolation of this argument would suggest that using any mortality table for any individual actuarial calculation has no basis. Certainly, because a mortality table shows a 1% mortality rate at age 65 does not mean a particular individual has a 1% chance of croaking.

^*p 249, True Odds, James Walsh, Merritt Publishing, 1996.

Plan has a self-employed individual who deferred monthly from his guaranteed payments. Match was calculated at the time the deferrals were made based on the guaranted payment amount.

From 1/1-5/31 the match formula was 100% of SD up to 1% of compensation.

From 6/1/-12/31 the match formula was 100% of SD up to 1.5% of compensation.

Now that we have the information from the K-1 to calculate actual compensation, we need to determine what his match contribution should actually be versus what the client calculated throughout the year.

Any idea how to compensate for the match formula that changed throughout the year?

I have considered pro-rating the earned income and applying the match formula that was in effect at the time each deferral was made to the pro-rated amount.

Or can we say that since compensation is deemed paid as of the end of the year, that the match can be based on 100% of SD up to 1.5% of compensation?

Another person in my office suggested calculating the average amount of compensation that was matched throughout the year and applying that match formula (i.e. 100% of SD up to 1.29% of compensation).

Any thoughts on the most accurate way to calculate this match?

Thank you!

Laura

A large company sponsors a 401(k) deferral only plan. In order to be eligible to participate, a person needs to be "scheduled" to work 1000 hours. Participation is immediate as long as the employee's work schedule is for 1000 or more hours.

If someone is a participant in the plan and making deferrals, and her schedule changes so that her scheduled hours are less than 1000 hours, her deferral election is turned off by the employer because she is no longer considered eligible due to the reduction in scheduled hours.

I'm a DB guy and its been a few years since I've worked in the 401(k) arena, but that does not sound legitimate to me. Since it is a deferral only plan, I thought the rule of thumb was "once in always in".

I'm interested in hearing comments from people who are closer to 401(k) eligibility issues than myself. I citation would be extraordinary. Thx.

A small defined benefit plan has been making required minimum distributions to the 100% owner for the past three years. The RMD was based on a 100% J & S annuity. In November 2008, after receiving the 2008 RMD, the participant made his living trust the primary beneficiary rather than his wife who had been, although she is a beneficiary of the trust and is just two years younger than him. He then died 10 days later.

The 401(a)(9) final regulations indicate that RMD's after death continue to be distributed in the same manner they commenced.

Assuming the participant did not accrued a benefit in 2008, the RMD payable to the living trust would be the same RMD he received in 2008 just prior to his death.

Does anyone disagree with this?

what are the barriers, if any, to Congress taxing Roth IRA "earnings" distributions ( as opposed to already-taxed contributions) in the future?

If a plan (10 employee plan) is frozen say 1/1/08 is it required that emplyees still receive vesting years of service after 1/1/08?

My recollection is yes and that this is fairly fundamental, but I did not observe anything explicit on this at this time.