Does anyone have any good sources of info on developing and administering the new bicycle commuting benefits? I would like to discuss implementing this with my employer, but I'm feeling a little lost about how exactly it is supposed to work. A lot of the webpages I can find discuss a $20/month limit, yet it seems as though the code specifies it as an annual limit, which makes more sense since it seems like most people won't have expenses every month.

Taking over a plan with the following fixed contribution formula:

8.75% of pay up to the wage base

+

5.7% of pay above the wage base

My foggy recollection of integration was X% on all + 5.7% on excess and x had to be >,= to 5.7%, which it is here.

So I am thinking that this is not stricly under the permitted disparity method and would require general testing. Does that seem correct?

Thanks

I have a client who has provided me with a document which states that match is made on a payroll-by-payroll basis for all eligible participants. It goes on to say that a matching "true-up" contribution will be made to participants who are actively employed on the last day of the year. The are claiming that they need coverage testing for the true-up match. (This is what was provided by their prior service provicer.) My opinion is that coverage is automatically satisfied as all eligible employees are eligible to participate in the plan and, if they make deferrals, then they will receive a match contribution. Therefore, the coverage ratio is 100% for the 401(m) portion of the plan.

I would take the postion that the issue is a BRF issue, but I am not 100% sure. My problem is that I am unsure how this should be tested. On the surface, I would think that there is a discrepency in the rate of match. However, if the plan sponsor matches accruately throughout the year, then, I would think that no testing is required as everyone was entitled to the same level of match. Do I simply say that there are two groups of people: the first consisting of those who are actively employed on the last day of the year and the second consisting of everyone else? Do I then calculate the nondiscriminatory availability? Or do I review and see of those not active on the last day, who received the correct matching contribution and include them in the first group as they received the "correct" matching contirbution? Or is there something else I should be doing?

As always, comments are greatly appreciated.

I have a client who has received the following link by e-mail.

http://www.pbpexecutivereports.com/er.asp?...mp;id=958799471

I have been asked by my boss to check into the validity of this. I personally think this is just one of those scams that come about in bad economic times. Does anyone know if there are actually new rules or regulations coming out, or is this just a bunch of b.s.?

We have a client with a 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan that would like to exclude an HCE from plan participation by name. The employee in question was hired 10/01/2008 and would be entering the plan on 1/01/2010. When did / does the amendment have to be executed by in order to accomplish this? Should it have been executed by 10/01/2008 or can we do it currently since he hasn't entered the plan yet?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!!

We have solicited a few RFP's for a dependent eligiblity audit and have come down to 2 finalists.

Has anyone had any experience with Chapman Kelly, a firm that provides this service as well as medical claims audits?

Were you satisfied with their service?

Were there any issues?

Would you use them again?

Does anyone use Oracle, and if so , how are you tracking verification of dependent eligibility in Oracle?

Lexy

DB plan is terminating and all benefits are being paid out in June. Elderly owner/participant who has been taking required minimum distributions from the plan has elected to directly roll over her lump sum payout to an IRA. If I remember correctly, the 2009 RMD exemption applies to both DC plans and IRAs; does this mean that she is not required to take an RMD this year even though the benefit was in a DB plan for part of the year? All help is greatly appreciated.

We are a regional TPA who work with numerous financial institutions. Recently, one of the banks we work with interpreted the rule to mean that we must have a policy in place. Also, after reviewing the rule, it looks like the plan sponsors who have loan provisions might also be required to impliment a policy.

Have any of you dealt with this? If so, what is your interpretation?

Thanks

Dune

.

I have an owner that hired employees in October 2008. They are not eligible for the plan until 1/1/2010.

Can I still do a 5500-EZ (owners only) until they become eligible in 2010?

Thanks

Client amended for GUST using a Corbel volume submitter document (not prototype style), but missed the mandatory rollover amendment (IRC Section 401(a)(31)(B)). We want to correct for the missing interim amendment through VCP.

Under EPCRS, Section 6.05, it appears to me that submitting for a favorable determination letter as part of our VCP application is mandatory since we are in the midst of the EGTRRA amendment cycle for a VS plan (and since the IRS issued a sample amendment--but not a model amendment--for this change). I welcome comments about this conclusion, but that's not my real question.

This plan has never received a favorable letter--at least not that we can tell--and documents are available only back to an un-dated pre-GUST restatement (retro to 1/1/97).

Does anyone know how far back the IRS will require us to provide documents in order to issue an FDL for the plan?

If a deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, the general deadlines for IRS and DOL forms, filings and notices are extended to the next business day. Usually this rule is spelled out on the applicable form. What if we're dealing with a notice to participants not a form? Is there a general rule extending the deadline in these circumstances? Thanks for any thoughts.

Corbel gives me the option to put Lettinga & Associates in the footnote of every page of the adoption agreement. I have never done this, but I am wondering. Are there advantages to doing this?

What are all of you doing?

I want to terminate a HRA plan. There are no outstanding reimbursements to be paid. Any other steps besides notices that must be done?

A client wants to amend their 501©9 exempt VEBA to provide health insurance premium payment/reimbursement. This was a physician practice, two covered persons - the Dr (+spouse) and his office manager (+spouse). (I'm not convinced that these were the only eligible participants, but that's what they tell me.)

When set up in 1986, the VEBA was actuarially certified and is fully funded. Office Manager is the trustee. The plan was written to provide LTD & STD, and severance for current employees only. No claims have ever been made. All contributions were apparently made by the employer. All 990s & 5500s have been filed.

The employer sold most of its assets and dissolved in 1995. So I don't think there are any employees anymore, and therefore no plan participants. Also, both former employees are now retired. There's one clause in the trust giving the trustee the power to pay "future claims of Plan Participants until no monies or other assets remain in the Trust" in the case of termination by the employer.

It seems like the plan needs to be amended in two ways: to provide health insurance benefits in addition to LTD & STD, and to provide these benefits to the retirees. The severance benefit does not seem applicable anymore.

Here's what I can't figure out:

What happens when we re-characterize contributions made under the original plan (severance & LTD, STD for employees only) as benefits for retirees? It seems like this will violate the reserve limitations for post-retirement benefits and create UBIT for the last 23 years.

Is this right? If not, what am I missing? Could anybody suggest guidance? I can't find any, maybe I am reading the wrong regs.

Is anyone else being deluged with Medicare Secondary Payer claims, referrals to Treasury, offsets, etc.? Has anyone succeeded in getting anyone at CMS, Treasury, or the CMS contractor (MSPRC) to return calls, listen, explain, acknowledge that there are problems?

We have a plan whose document allows for participants to have only one loan outstanding, refinancing is not prohibited.

A participant took a loan in August 2006 (5 year re-payment period) with weekly payments (all payments are current). Same participant requested and received a 2nd loan in February 2009 (current plan year). Also for a 5 year re-payment period and to-date, all payments are current (participant is not a key employee). The same participant did have a sufficient vested account balance at the time the 2nd loan was taken to allow a refinancing of the original loan plus additional amount requested for a new 5 year repayment period in accordance with IRC Section 72(p)(2)(B) & ©. The company does not want to allow more than one loan in the future - this was a one time error.

Obviously this is an operational error. My question is on the proper correction method to fix the error. May this be corrected through the EPCRS Self Correction Program with a plan amendment, in the same manner as would a plan that issued a loan to a participant but did not have loans available in the plan document? Or, would the plan be required to correct the error with an amendment through VCP?

Has anyone ever seen this type of error and corrected in another manner (besides deeming the 2nd loan as a distribution)?

thanks,

For commission-only employees for whom hours of service are not kept, do you use equivalencies to count hours of service? Along similar lines, how are breaks in service calculated?

Are there any rules on when compensation should be included for plan purposes? Is the calculation of compensation on a cash basis (when paid) ok even if the commissions were earned in a prior plan year?

Just to be very obvious where the gaps in my knowledge are . . .

Can loans be taken from a 403(b) from any $$, or only from employer $$?

I am working with an employer that is using a new prototype document that specifies the 'Participant Group Allocation Method' under LRM 94 language. The adoption agreement specifies that the employer will specify the groupings for the plan year by the time it makes the contribution.

After running several different grouping scenarios, it looks like cross-testing is not as good for the plan year ended April 30 as would a simple profit sharing allocation of the same percentage of earnings for everyone. Due to some personnel changes in this small company (10 employees, counting the two owners), the owners are almost all younger than the 7 other employees.

May the employer specify one grouping of all 10 employees under the LRM 94 language, allocate the entire contribution within that one group in respect to earnings, and not be discriminatory because all eligible employees are receiving the same percentage of earnings? Or must we use cross-testing to show discrimination, in which case the single grouping idea would cause the plan to be discriminatory?