The sample plan amendments in the Notice give participants a choice to receive or postpone what would otherwise be a required minimum distribution for 2009. Is the IRS saying that particiants must be given a choice to waive the required minimum distribution or can a plan choose to not give a participant the choice and force out the 2009 distribution as if it was required?

Our plan has an employer match. To share in the employer match, the employee has to be a participant on the last day of the plan year. We want to get rid of the match this year. Can we retroactively amend the Plan document to remove the match since the employee has technically not accrued the match (i.e. it is not the end of the plan year and we do not know who will be employed at the end of the year).

Also, we switched custodains in the middle of the plan year. So technically, if I am able to process an amendment, is it only retroactive to the middle of the plan year (the date custodians changed). Any help would be appreciated.

The participant is using a loan to purchase a principal residence so the term will be 15 years. What is a reasonable interest rate to use? Help!

Hi All,

Does anybody have a checklist that they've developed of things to consider/processes to follow when sending employees to a war-risk country or another international assignment? If so and you would be willing to share, I would greatly appreciate it! Our international benefits broker came up empty handed (which is a little disappointing!)

Thanks!

Does anyone have any thoughts on the following:

A plan requires documentation verifying the eligibility of a dependent before the dependent may enroll in the plan (eg. marriage license, birth certificate, etc.) Under the special enrollment rules, if a "request for enrollment" is received within 30 days (or longer if the plan allows) of the event (marriage, birth, adoption or placement for adoption), coverage must begin no later than the first day of the first calendar month beginning after the date the plan receives the "request for special enrollment" for marriage and on the date of the event for birth, adoption and placement for adoption.

What is a "request for special enrollment?" Can the plan require that the dependent verification documentation be submitted within the 30 days (i.e. consider that documentation part of the "request")? Or must the plan enroll the dependent based only on a status change form that is received within 30 days even though the verification documentation is not also provided?

Just to be clear, do we all agree that the QDIA rules are impossible to comply with in the real world, particularly the small employer world? (and I know they're just safe harbors).

-For example, 30 days before the contribution is funded, you may very well not even know if there is going to be a contribution.

-OR let's say you play it safe and tell clients to distribute the notice in January, and then they don't fund until September 15th. An 8 month delay seems like a bit of a stretch for a notice.

-And how many people are really sending out additional annual notices to plan participants who never changed the default?

Real world answers only please

As a follow-up, I had heard from someone who had heard that the money market might return as an acceptable default investment. Anyone else hear that?

I have a client who saw an old plan name in the newpaper (merged into the existing plan about 10 years ago) for unclaimed money.

He was the trustee then and is now.

Any ideas on what can be done with the money? or the proper methods i should use to capture this...

We are only talking about $1,500.00

I have a plan that have several US citizens who work and live in Canada. They are employed by a US company and are participants in the US DC plan. They are paid in Canadian dollars.

Question: I assume they need to be tested in the US plan since they are participating. Do I convert their Canadian salary to US dollars?

Also, are there any special Canadian rules that need to be followed? Similar to PR participants.

Is the rule still applicable in section 152(d)(1)© regarding the taxpayer providing over 1/2 of the individual's support? We are trying to figure out if we need to ask this question before paying a hardship for a participant's mother's expenses.

Hi,

Question: Employer who is the trustee of the 401(k) plan wishes to transfer the plans investments to a new adviser. Are there any standard formalized procedures/laws for notifying the old investment advisor and a legal time from for the old advisor to complete the transfer? Limit on fees for leaving?

Thanks.

erisaauditor

Company A acquires company B in a stock transaction. Company A has a defined benefit pension plan and a 401(k). Company B has only a 401(k) plan. Can company A continue to cover only employees of Company A in the defined benefit plan, or must Company A cover the "new" Company B employees also?

We were told that going forward, we need to change the way we administer our health benefits. We used to always use the effective date of coverage as the qualifying event date as long as the form was received by us within 30 days. Now we are told that we would use the effective date of the date the form is received by us, not the qualifying event date. This doesn't seem to make sense to us, does anyone know where this new legislation is written? Is this a governmental thing?

When must an employer match be deposited to the Plan? The Plan operates on a calendar year (January 1st to December 31st) and the fiscal year is October 1st to September. For instance, if it was 2004, the plan year is January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2004 and the 2004 fiscal year is October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2005. I know if the both plans operate on a calendar year, the employer contributions are due 30 days after the form 1120 (taking into accoutn all extensions).

But, what about in the case when the employer and plan operate on different years? When would the employer contribitions be due?

A portion of a participant's monthly benefit was previously assigned via QDRO. The participant has now requested to start the pension and low and behold, the participant is remarried to the former spouse, and the QDRO was never revoked (I presume this could be done?).

So, presumably we still present benefits as if there had been no remarriage?

Any help clarifying the following would be appreciated.

A PS plan has an "employed on the last day of the year" allocation requirement. The company also likes to deposit PS money into the participant's individual accounts throughout the year. The employer deposits an equal percentage of pay for everyone, or at least a makes a reasonable estimate to keep things equal. Not the cleanest way to do things, but valid nonetheless. If a participant leaves before year end, then the PS money for that participant is moved eventually to all of the eligible participant accounts, based on the final contribution allocation calculated after year end.

Question 1: This is valid, is it not?

Question 2: The participant can direct this current year PS money, just like the rest of the account balance, correct?

Question 3: By depositing PS money during the year, the employer is "committed" to at least this PS amount, right? That is, the employer cannot make $50,000 in PS deposits during the year, and then at year end decide that the company only wants to make a $20,000 contribution?

I have an accountant argueing that because of the employment on the last day requirement, that no allocation is valid and that no PS money should be going into anyones accounts during the year, let alone having the participant's self-direct this money that is not really their's yet. I see his point and I agree that making deposits in mid year is not a great idea.....but I still don't think that any of this is necessarily wrong.

Any thoughts, comments or cites that can make the case one way or the other?

Thanks

any investment advisors out there carry a fiduciary erisa bond. i am seeing that there is an exception for advisors that do not have discretionary authority. i want to see if others agree or what others are doing?

We recently heard about this company's services and were wondering if anyone in our community was using them (or a company similar). I have been checking out their demo videos on their website this week, and it seems fairly easy. It would sure save time and money to be able to send and amendment to a client via email this way.

Anyone have thoughts or comments on this? If you have used this company's services - or those of a similar company - we'd like to hear your feedback.

Thanks!

Q-2. Can a 401(k) safe harbor plan match elective and employee contributions on a payroll-by-payroll basis (instead of on an annual basis) without making additional contributions at the end of the year to take into account the total amount of an employee's compensation for the plan year?

A-2. Notwithstanding section VII.A. (or any other provision) of Notice 98-52, the requirements of sections V.B.1. and VI.B. of Notice 98-52 that relate to matching contributions may be met for a plan year by meeting such requirements either (1) with respect to the plan year as a whole, or (2) if the plan so provides, separately with respect to each payroll period (or with respect to all payroll periods ending with or within each month or plan-year quarter) taken into account under the arrangement for the plan year (the "payroll period method"). If the payroll period method is used, however, matching contributions with respect to elective or employee contributions made during a plan year quarter beginning after May 1, 2000 must be contributed to the plan by the last day of the following plan year quarter. Accordingly, in the case of a calendar year plan that uses the payroll period method, matching contributions with respect to elective or employee contributions made during the calendar quarter beginning July 1, 2000, must be contributed to the plan by December 31, 2000. The payroll period method applies only for purposes of satisfying the ADP safe harbor matching contribution requirements of section 401(k)(12) (section V.B.1. of Notice 98-52) and the ACP safe harbor matching contribution requirements of section 401(m)(11) (section VI.B. of Notice 98-52).

the above copied from IRS Notice 2000-3 on Safe Harbor 401k Plans

It seems simple questions just lead to more confusion. How does any Retirement Plan career enthusiast stay sane??

HR had communicated to me through email that our safe harbor match is payroll based but the notice that was provided after our recent plan conversion says it is based on compensation annually. I wanted clarification and was told it was payroll based because they make the match each payroll period. I asked if a corrected notice would be provided and was told it was believed there would be a corrected notice and that one had been requested from the service provider. Since the answer to the question impacts whether or not I decide to increase my deferral percentage in the next pay cycle and the SPD was not clear and my opportunity to change my election is soon to expire for the next payroll period and because I had thought it needed to be explicity stated in the plan if it was payroll based I asked to review the plan document and adoption agreement so that I could be sure one way or the other. As it turns out the AA/BPD is also unclear. There does not appear to be anything that explicity states either that the match is annual or that it is payroll based. HR has asked the document provider for the exact location of the plan provision that states the match is payroll based. Again because the looming deadline to change my deferral I went on a search for information. The BPD does state the contributions can be (not will be) deposited more frequently than annually. Does this satisy the "if the plan so provides" in notice 2000-3? Does this mean if the employer matches each payroll that the match is payroll based by virtue of the act of depositing the match each pay period? Does this also mean that if they stop matching each payroll period it will be annual? If both of these are true does this also mean that it can change the type of match without plan amendment? Does it also follow that they could match per payroll for a portion of the plan year and only the portion that is not matched per payroll would have the match determined based on compensation earned in the partial year rather than on a payroll basis? Does anything regarding the computation period of the match need to be provided in the annual notice?

Thanks for any help in clearing up my confusion.

For those who may recognize me from my other thread, the reason I asked about the match is because I didn't want to increase my deferrals to recoup the portion of my deferrals that are not reinstated to the plan through the correction process if my increase would be subject to a true-up and thus put me in a better position than I would have been in had my deferrals not been stopped inappropriately. And yes, my head hurts. Not even 800 mg Motrin seems to help.

Does anyone have any current experience with Audit CAP sanctions for EGTRRA non-amenders, not in the DL context? There are some posts on the board indicating that the sanction may be about double the amount in the table in the latest EPCRS guidance, and I am wondering whether this seems to be the typical opening bid. The guidance just says that the sanction is expected to be larger when a non-amender situation is identified through an audit vs. the DL process. Anyone have much success in getting the Service to back the sanction down through negotiation or do they tend to stick with the opening bid?

Much obliged, fellow practitioners of the deadly arts of ERISA.

Is it legal (particularly, is it legal in Oklahoma) to mandate participation in employer-provided health insurance? The exception would be evidence of other coverage (spouse's plan, Medicare, Tribal insurance, Veterans insurance, etc). If it makes any difference to the answer, we do have a Sec 125 premium-only plan.

Basically we'd be saying, if you want to work here, then you have to be in our health insurance. I.e., participation would be a "condition of employment".

The reason is to reduce adverse selection. We're leaving a multi-employer association due a 37.6% increase this year and want to minimize the risk of major increases in coming years by maximizing our number of insureds.