The top heavy regs permit a match to be used to meet TH requirements, which results in the match not then being used for ACP testing. (Treas. Reg. Section 1.416-1, Q&A M-19.) I'm not positive, but I believe that particular reg Q&A language predates a like change to the IRC effective with EGTRRA. (IRC Section 416©(2)(A), last sentence.)

In other words, I believe that the match could be used towards TH (with the ACP impact) even before the enactment of EGTRRA.

Does anyone know if that is correct?

The correction is being done for the 2007 plan year. In 2009, there are no NHCEs employed. Does the employer luck out in not having to make a contribution? Almost seems too good to be true!

Hi, I need to prepare a presentation to our HR Rep population with an overview of Employer welfare plans. Can anyone share such a presentation or a document summarizing the key aspects of employer welfare plans?

Employee has a Deferred Compensation Agreement that begins 15-year payments upon termination of employment. As part of negotatied severance, parties want to delay the payout for 1 year after severance. Is this ok per 409A?

Just wondering what people are doing for reporting assets on Sch I, line 1a?

Are you adding the receivables like we used to do?

OR

Are you adding the discounted receivables that we use for MVA for the Sch SB?

I guess the same question would apply to line 2a(1) too.

I should probably know this, but it has not previously been an issue I've considered. Does the designation of a beneficiary other than the spouse of an employer sponsored life insurance policy require the spouse's consent? Does the answer change if it is a community property state?

I was thinking that the 3% safe harbor NEC had to go to everyone, but wanted to make sure. Can I exclude an HCE from getting the 3% NEC for any reason? I was thinking that we couldn't put an hours requirement or any other requirement on the NEC.

thanks

I think I already know the answer is "no", but I'll ask anyways:

Trustees want to switch to a new investment platform, but face significant surrender fees for doing so. Can they use the forfeiture account to pay these surrender fees? The plan document does allow for forfeitures to be used to pay fees.

Thanks

For FSA's????

The multiemployer 401(k) plan will be amended to include non-union employees of participating employers. It appears that this will cause the plan to become a multiple employer plan as well.

Has anybody encountered such an arrangement? Would ADP/ACP testing and application of other qualfiication rules be applied by "carving out" the non-union group? Would each employer have to file a separate 5500, or only those with non-union participants? Would this cause the arrangement to CEASE to be a multiemployer plan?

This is a new arrangment for me and I'm afraid there could be a number of landmines. Any insights would be most appreciated!

Does anyone have any thought what definition the IRS is looking toward when it uses the term "going concern" in the final regulations?

I posted this on the Corrections board also

Employer sponsors a SARSEP. Employer called us recently concerned about several potential issues with their plan. I just want to make sure that I have a firm grasp of possibe repercussions of the potential errors:

1. Document has not been updated since 1993. I think we can correct using VCP.

2. Potentially less than 50% of the employees participated in a given year. If that occurred the employer ceased to be an eligible sponsor. Is the IRS just going to allow the plan sponsor to cease contributions at this point? It seems like that from reviewing Rev. Proc. 2008-50.

3. Potentially the plan could have failed the deferral percentage test in any number of years. Under VCP employer should be able to correct in any such error by making nonelective contributions for any such and adjusting for earnings.

4. Potentially employees may not have been provided with an opportunity to participate. Under VCP this requires nonelective contributions adjusted for earnings.

5. Potentially excess contributions (elective deferrals) could have been made. Under VCP this requires refunds adjusted for earnings.

Am I grasping this correctly; particularly point #2? As I research further I find a lot of information indicating that after the point at which they failed the 50% test, all contirbuions would need to be distributed. So if they failed the 50% test in 1998, all contributionsfor 1998 & beyond would needd to be distributed. Is that correct? I do not see that mentioned in Rev. Proc. 2008-50, but maybe I am missing it.

Thanks in advance for any guidance

Here is the situation:

Company A owns 50% of Company B. Both Company A & B participate under one plan as a multiple ER plan. Effective 1/1/2008, Company A buys the remaining 50% of Company B, therefore creating a single employer plan. Company B is now a participating employer.

When they were a multiple ER plan, all testing was done separate. For 2008, how should the testing be handled? I am thinking, it would be one test, since in theory, the assets "merged" together effective 1/1/2008. The employers would not be able to utilize the transition rule and continue to due ALL testing separate for 2008 and 2009. Of course, they continue to have different levels of benefits for match (BRF test) and Profit Sharing (General Test).

1. Should a revised H&W SPD include the new COBRA subsidy rules?

2. Should a revised H&W SPD include the new rules under the 2009 legislation (e.g., mastectomy under WHCRA)?

3. If so (and I think the answer is YES to both), does anybody know where sample language can be found? I would rather use model language that is IRS approved or at least "industry approved" rather than spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel crafting such languge from the statutes.

Again, thank you everybody! It's always something...

A 401(k) Plan has a participant that terminated in 2005 and they still have an account balance as of 12/31/08.

My question is where to report them on Form 5500. Line 7b or 7c

7b = Retired or seperated participants receiving benefits

7c = Other retired or seperated participants entitled to future benefits.

I am thinking since they have not requested a distribution yet, they are entitled to future benefits and should be reported on line 7c.

Is this corrrect?

Figured a few people on here might find this interesting...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6437320.html

Any thoughts? This is new to me and I haven't found much guidance on point.

Thank you!

Preparing annual administration for a client we discovered the client approved a loan to a participant for $49,000 in August 2008. While the participant's account balance would support a loan of that size, a prior loan with an outstanding balance of $7,000 at August 2007 was ignored in calculating the maximum available loan. I understand that this not a self-correction type of prohibited transaction. What should be our steps to help the client clean up this mess? Thanks!

Can a collectively bargained, multiemployer plan be amended to allow non-union employees of other employers to participate in the plan? I would think that this would make the plan a multiple employer plan as well. If this is allowed, would the multiemployer plan rules only apply to the union portion of the "plan"? Also, would there still be just one 5500 for the entire "plan"?

We are considering holding a "vendor plan summit" this fall. We have ~15 large vendors (health, dental, vision, Rx, EAP, retirement) that we want to bring together to discuss resources, tools etc. to assist us in our health strategy initiative. Has anyone done a program like this and if so, what has been the reception? Any advice? Thanks.