Does anyone have a link to a good web-site that tells you when tax returns are due? (or in particular, the funding of employer contributions).

My understanding is that they pushed back the partnership return due date to 9/15 for calendar 2008 tax years. Can anyone verify/send out a link?

If an unqualified deferred compensation plan provides for vesting of an employer contribution upon the earlier of (i) death, (ii) disability, (iii) termination without cause or (iv) one year from the date of the contribution, and that payment will be made in lump sum within 30 days of vesting, does the plan meet the short term deferral exception to 409A?

There is a substantial risk of forfeiture and the payment would occur before the end of applicable 2 1/2 month period. My concern is that allowing earlier vesting and payment upon death, disability and termination without cause might somehow change the analysis, though I don't see how.

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Employment agreement provides that if employee is involuntarily terminated without cause, the employer will pay 1/2 employee's annual salary in a lump sum within 60 days. However, if the termination occurs within 1 year after a "change in control" (defined in a way that does NOT comply with the 409A definition), the lump sum payment will equal a full year's salary.

Will this satisfy the short-term deferral exception, or must the definition of CiC in the agreement satisfy the definition in the regulations?

I'm thinking it will work, because the employee's right to payment is subject to significant risk of forfeiture, and is paid within the short-term period after the right is no longer subject to the SRF. Section -3© of the regs gives me some concern that the CiC definition must comply, but this provision relates to when "deferred compensation" may be paid (and, if the payment meets the short-term exception, then -3 doesn't come into play).

I also believe that the agreement won't have 409A effect if the payment is spread out over a 1-year period, as long as the involuntary separation pay exception is satisfied.

Thoughts?

A cash balance plan is designed with a small benefit formula. If the company sponsor has a good year, the formula is retroactively increased for that year only. Each year the formula is either left at the original low level, or retroactively increased for that year only. The purpose of the design and methodology is to increase the flexibility of employer contributions to reflect the actual level of business activity.

Does this meet IRC regs?

If not, why not?

Help!!!

I know what this is but have never had any involvement in administration.

As Benefit Administration how much involvement is this person expected to contribute. Should this information come from Finance/Accounting? What information is the Benefits person expected to present?

Out of the blue a client has received notice of a DOL audit of their health plan.

They are fully insured, and under 100 participants, so no 5500 has been filed. They have requested all plan documents and forms. Has anyone seen this activity from DOL?

A company had open enrollment in November as normal for a 1/1 plan year. This month they decided they want to change the plan year to 5/1, because they are adding some new companies to the fold and need to bring them in to the plan. Can they change this mid-year, without announcing during open enrollment? I understand you can do a short plan year, but I thought it had to be announced.

Can participants make election changes? Add spouse etc.?

I was hoping someone could provide a brief 457 "101 - Basics" and then point me in the right direction for additional information.

This is regarding an employer that I'm not really involved with: A (very) small business maintains both a 457(b) and 457(f) plans. Attorney drafted both documents and everything seems to be OK with that.

What administrative services are needed for these plan on an ongoing basis? There are no 5500s needed. Any other filings that they should be making? These are non-qualified plans, so the usual 415 and 402(g) limits wouldn't apply correct? The plan covers only the owner, so there are no testing issues. Do they need a TPA at all for something like this?

Thanks for any help.

I just took in a 401k plan with a plan year of 2/1 to 1/31. What year determines the limits to the plan-2008 or 2009? It is my understanding that the calander year is what counts. Am I right? Thanks.

I provide services, including document drafting, to a pre-ERISA MPPP with a 401k feature that has been grandfathered passed the prohibition of a 401k feature being in a MPPP. The employer is a local governmental entity. So this plan is grandfathered in the additional aspect that a governmental employer has a plan with a 401k feature.

In the past, I've prepared documents for this plan by preparing an MPP (NS) adoption agreement to a DC prototype, then adding the 401k feature provisions by way of a contemporaneous amendment--making the plan individually designed. We applied for and received a GUST II d-letter.

For EGTRRA, I dropped the MPP prototype and now have just a 401k PS prototype (NS). Rather than draft an individually designed plan document, I am considering adopting the plan preparing an adoption agreement to the EGTRRA 401k PS prototype (NS) that preserves the QJSA/QPSA as the default form of payout and not allowing hardships or any other in-service distributions. In the SPD, I'd also specify the fixed contribution obligation that has been part of the MPPP, despite the new governing plan documents reserving annual discretion to the employer as to what contributions to make.

My prototype was approved with language about governmental plans using it not being subject to the minimum coverage requirement provisions or the nondiscriminatory allocation provisions, and being subject to the minimum vesting provisions only to the extent not varied by an addendum to the adoption agreement.

My question is whether changing the type of plan from MPP to PS would jeopardize the grandfathering of the governmental employer having a plan with a 401k feature?

Any other concerns?

A new client brings in a money purchase pension plan. The old document provider is going out of business. The current adoption agreement specifies NRA to be 65/5. The SPD explains NRA to be 55/5.

In preparing new EGTRRA restatement documents, I think I've got to go with 55/5 to avoid a prohibited cutback. That will take the NRA out of the 62 and above safe harbor, but at least the plan would yet have the presumption that it is an appropriate NRA since it is not below 55.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

One other glitch. An SMM that properly described a change made by an amendment signed by the employer also includes curious language about elective deferral catch-ups, although this is not a pre-ERISA, grandfathered MPP w 401k feature. There have never been any elective deferrals allowed or made to this MPPP.

Are there any steps that need to be taken by reason of this misinformation having been included in the SMM?

What is the usual procedure for correcting a plan's failure to timely amend in connection with amendments required as part of a Cycle A determination letter? Can such a failure always be corrected under EPCRS or does it depend in part on the nature of the amendments required?

I'm 58 and want to contribute the maximum $6K to a Roth IRA this year. To do so I must have at least $6K in taxable income. If I get laid off after earning exactly $6K, can I fund my $6K Roth IRA and fund a $6K spousal Roth IRA for my wife as well - or would I need to have $12K in taxable income to fund both?

Thanks,

Michael

If somebody amended their plan document for a law that they should have amended for during a previous plan year, do they stand as a tardy amender for all of the plan year in which they amended?

Is a refund paid in 2008 to correct a failed 2007 ADP test treated as an in-service distribution and added back for TH if the recipient is Key (as well as Highly).

What about if the Participant only becomes a 10% owner mid 2008. Is the same refund added back?

I think if you are Key you are Key for the year so it is added back as paid to a Key employee.

(Plan is TH for 2009 with the refund, not TH without the refund)

Thanks

The bulk of my IRA assets are at a very large firm that handles university employee retirement accounts. They have ignored repeated requests over the last 10 weeks to make a partial rollover to another IRA, including written transfer requests,certified letters and telephone calls. Obviously I am concerned that they may be stonewalling because they are in some sort of financial difficulty. At this point I want to rollover 100%, or take the entire sum out and deposit with another custodian within 60 days.

What now? What government agencies can I appeal to? SEC? FINRA? IRS? My representatives in Congress?

Advice very much appreciated

A client of ours recently called us with a very interesting question. A participant rents a place for him and his family. The property is being foreclosed upon and he therefore is being evicted. He can not prevent this eviction as it is out of his control. However, he wants to take a hardship so he can immediately place a security deposit and 1st months rent down on a new place for him and his family. The plan follows safe harbor standards. The participant has the court documents and notice indicating eviction. I personally think that since the hardship can't prevent eviction, it does not qualify. A colleague of mine feels that due to the economic times, the IRS is loosening their standards and would likely allow this with proper documentation.(notice, copy of lease for new place). I'm not sure if this is a risk I(or the client) would like to take---any thoughts? I'd greatly appreciate it!

An employer allowed a participant (NHCE) to join the plan at age 19 and the eligibility age was age 21. The employee deferred in 2007 and 2008. We were not aware of this until now (2/2009). The employee's actual entry date should be 1/1/2009. I referenced 2008-35 I.R.B. and it says, "The amendment may change the eligibility or entry date provisions with respect to only those ineligible employees that were wrongly included, and....". I have a concern with amending the plan for one person when several others were excluded because of age (all NHCE's). Thanks.

Plan calls for a safe harbor matching contribution determined and contributed on a payroll period basis. Client wants to do a true up after the end of the plan year. Can we true up or is that prohibited because of payroll period match determination?

I have a new CB plan for 2008 that defines the accrued benefit as the CB account balance and uses the 30 year T-rate as the AE and the interest crediting rate. There is no past service credit. As everyone knows, under PPA the target normal cost is less than the total cash balance accounts contribution. My software vendor has not yet programmed the at-risk 404 calc. When I work through an example from a session at last years advanced actuarial conference I seem to end up with the exact cash balance account deposit. That's a good thing. BTW, 415 does not come into play in this case. I'm just looking for some input from anyone that's worked though the at-risk calc as to whether that sounds reasonable. Thanks.