Can an plan administrators' QMCSO procedures provide that a QMCSO will not be honored if the QMCSO is not submitted to the plan administrator within 31 days of the date of the order?

Plan's AFTAP is 100%. Participant age 55 can elect early retirement and either start pension or defer to later start date. The lump sum option is available.

Question: Should election package disclose the risk of deferring the start date election that a full or any lump sum may not be distributable in a later year?

Does anyone see a non-discrimination issue or any other issue with a governmental plan (for a state university) limiting loan and hardship withdrawals to only participants who have accounts with the 2 approved vendors (so as to limit the need for Info Sharing Agreements- with vendors of those participants who haven't moved to the approved vendors and other compliance issues). If other particpants want loans they can exchange contracts for a contract with an approved vendor. Any thoughts?

It was released today.

If you are a Windows' user and you load and get error, you may need to update Windows (my computer is XP). Here is the link I followed:

"http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=5B2C0358-915B-4EB5-9B1D-10E506DA9D0F&displaylang=en"

I scrolled towards the bottom of the page and used this version: NetFx20SP2_x86.exe

The above message is provided as information and proceed at your own risk. My recommendation would be to call Relius for assistance.

The Relius program loaded fine and is a standalone system which is not integrated with the 5500 or SAR systems.

I have not yet compared results.

In the case where a DB and DC plan cover at least one key in both plans and the DB Plan is frozen, what is the DC TH minimum?

I'm a bit confused by this but think the answer should be easy. Assume the DC plan is not a 401(k). Also assume all DB participants are also covered bythe DC plan.

Is the TH min in the DC plan now -

0% if no contrbution is made.

The highest alloaction rate to any key if key receives 0% - 3%

3% if any key receives 3% or more.

5% because there is a DB?

Does the answer change if the DB is underfunded and the employer is making contributions to the DB Plan?

I'm pretty sure the 5% no longer applies becuase the DB accruals are frozen which puts us back in the lessor of 3% or highest key rate world; does anybody disagree?

An FSO performs services for a third party, but those services do not fully compelte the job without another set of services provided by a B organization. See, for example, Example 4 in Prop. Treas. Reg. Section 1.414(m)-2©(8).

Must the "significant portion of the business" of the B organization--necessary for a B org. ASG to exist--result from receipts received directly from the FSO, or can those receipts, resulting from the coordination of efforts, come from a third party?

Say, for example, an architectural firm performs 40% of its services for 3rd parties who are referred by a building contractor, but those payments come from the 3rd party. Neither party would have been hired without the architectural firm's rendering of the design and drawings, for which the third party paid. All else being equal--i.e., the other tests of B org. status having been met (which may not be the case in this example)--would the fact that the receipts received by the B org were not paid by the FSO mean there would not be, and could not be, a B org. ASG relationship?

An S-corp employer (calendar tax year) has a 401(k) plan (calendar year) that allows for a discretionary match.

For 2008, they intend to make a matching contribution, funding it sometime this spring/summer. Their speedy tax return prep firm got everything done before March 15, 2009 and filed the corporation's tax return on time without filing an extension (the client has never had their returns completed by the March 15 deadline for any of the prior 10 years. The tax return included a deduction for the 2008 match ($80,000) to 50 employees, which has not yet been contributed.

Under 404(a)(6), a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment on the last day of the preceding taxable year if the payment is on account of such taxable year and is made not later than the time prescribed by law for filing the return for such taxable year (including extensions thereof).

I think it is too late to contribute a discretionary match now for 2008 since the extension was not filed?

Could they contribute and allocate for 2008 and then file under EPCRS to get the match allocated for 2008? Even if filing under EPCRS, no deduction for 2008 would be allowed anyway, or could EPCRS also allow that? No 415 limit issues and no 404 limitation issue would occur even if 2008 and 2009 both get deducted in the same year. To the client, this is mainly an employee relations issue, since the employees were verbally told that they can expect a match for 2008 based on their deferrals (the plan is clearly written as a discretionary employer amount).

We are located in Florida and we are at a site that is subject to FMLA.

We work in a call center and we have 3 scheduled arrival times. 8 am, 9:30 am and 11 am. We have an employee who works the 8 am shift and has a sick child (that she applied and was approved for intermittent fmla for). Because of the child, she is late most everyday (as in hours late). Because the department needs someone there first thing in the morning they would like to switch her to a later schedule (which she won't like).

I don't feel comfortable with them changing the schedule because she is late for a reason that is covered under the FMLA. If they change her schedule then she has to work later which she doesn't have to do now.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

I'm not sure they can do this. She was approved for intermittent leave to care for

Do Summary Annual Reports need to be completed for each plan year included in a delinquent Form 5500 filing under the DFVCP? If so, how would the group find the participants for each year? These are health & welfare filings.

Does anyone know if workers in a Puerto Rican division of a US based company can participate in a Section 125 Plan?

Sources seem to say no, but need some quotable language.

I'm looking for a software solution and would like some input. We're a smaller brokerage looking to administer COBRA for our clients. I'm leaning towards Travisoft so far and was wondering if anyone had any experience with the company that they'd like to share, or an opinion on another vendor to explore. Travisoft seems to have kept abreast of the recent ARRA changes and has updated their software accordingly, as well as posted a blog on the changes to keep their clients up-to-date. I also like that they are set up to handle state continuation of coverage as well as federal COBRA, a feature lacking in other solutions I've explored.

Any and all feedback would be tremendously helpful.

Thanks in advance!

We are almost ready to send our annual funding notice for the defined benefit plan. However, we cannot locate addresses for a handful of participants. We are searching. If we cannot locate them, what should we do? What is our responsibility regarding these participants?

A money purchase plan was merged into a PS/401(k) plan several years ago. The MP plan did not allow for in-service distributions. The PS/401(k) plan was recently amended to permit in-service distributions after age 59 1/2. Will the participant be permitted to take an in-service distribution from the entire vested balance?

What is the best way to correct this issue? Payroll failed to start loan payments for participant in June 2004. First payment was received 2/13/05 instead. Now 5 year period is about to be up and participant still owes a few hundred dollars more on the loan. Other than asking for participant to pay in full, what are the other options? I saw in ASPPA presentation slides from a recent webinar that if payroll does not start deductions on time there is an EPCRS solution - sited Leonard vs. IRS. I can't find this case by just a google search right now. Anyone know how this can be corrected?

Company X buys the assets of the Z division of Company Y. Company Y maintains a profit sharing plan for its employees. Assume that Company X is willing to accept a spinoff of the portion of the assets of the Company Y profit sharing plan attributable to the Z division employees. Company Y proposes to transfer only the vested portion of the affected participants' acccount balances. Does this result in a violation of a qualification requirement?

Many states are mandating coverage for dependents at older ages, or plans are making the changes on their own. How are you supposed to handle the premiums when you might have some dependents that qualify under IRS rules and some that don't?

For example:

EE elects coverage for Self & a qualifying child. Let's say the premium is $300 a month. This is paid pretax. At open enrollment, they add another child to the plan. This child does not qualify under IRS rules, but does under other rules. Premium is still $300, because it's one price regardless of the number of dependents. Can you still pretax the whole $300, or does part of it now need to become after tax?

(Note, no ER contribution to the dependent coverage, so we don't need to get into imputed income.)

Thanks for any thoughts.

Employer is instituting a severance program. Terminating employees will receive six months of coverage at the active employee rate. After that time, the employees may elect COBRA for the full statutory period. (For various reasons, the employer does NOT want to have the COBRA period run concurrent with the six-month subsidized continuation period.

Can the employees pay for the six months of coverage on a pre-tax basis from their severance pay? Section 1.125-1(a)(3)© state that "Premiums for COBRA Continuation" are qualified benefits under Code Section 125. Does that logic apply to "Premiums for NON-COBRA Continuation"?

(The COBRA subsidy is not a concern or at issue.)

Could somebody please point me to the most recent regulation on electronic distribution of SPDs? It's a typical Monday and I'm just not finding it. Thanks much!

I have just discovered that a client's 401(k) (with matching contribtion) provides:

1. A basic matching formula (up to 2% of employee's comp per year, if they are deferring at least 4% into plan), and

2. (for certain employees who transferred in under a reorganization): an Enhanced Matching formula that works on a graded schedule so that the maximum match amount is obtained after nine (9) years. The first year percentage is 0%, however, and the amounts increase thereafter.

I have found a problem with the terms that relate to rehired employees. Specifically, whoever drafted this Enhanced Matching formula also provided that "a Participant's period of service prior to his or her reimployment commencement date will not count for purposes of determining the Participant's employer matching contruction under the enhanced foumula (only such Particpant's period of service following his or her reemployment commencement date will count for puposes of determining the participant's employer matching contribution under the enhanced formula)."

(Plan uses elapsed time method of counting service).

The way I read IRC 410(a)(1)(A), so long as a rehired employee previously completed at least one year of service, then when rehired (unless they were 0% vested, made no elective deferrals, and at least five years have passed), they are immediately eligible to participate again.

Employer's practice has been to reenter rehires at the 0% match level - although rehires are immediately eligible for elective deferrals.

Having to reenter the 'enhanced match formula' and earn 0% for the first year of rehire seems a problem to me. I've told client that they can't do this, and that a rehired employee must at least qualify for the next highest level of match that is not zero.

Although it seems to me that the rehired person should be credited with to appropriate years of service (five, for example) and earn the corresponding (i.e. five-year level) match amount on rehire, do you all agree that there could, alternately, be a separate, less rich match formula only for rehires so long as they pass if they pass ACP testing, and as long as the rehires with at least one year of prior service get more than a "0% match" in the first year after rehire?

Thank you in advance for any guidance. This one has had me stumped. (I also realize that we may need to correct and make up for any rehire who should have gotten a higher match and didn't, after we identify who those people are).

Thanks!

Having researched this topic, I still find myself without a "good answer". Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Participant in his 30's decides he wants to take his salary deferral money out of the plan and invest in an IRA that has no connection to the Plan, which is a 401(k) Plan. This is not a Hardship, or any other legitimate distributable event. The person just wanted the money, and the plan administrator allowed the payment because "it was the person's money".

Subsequent to this payment, another person (30 something) decides that getting her money out would be wise, given the investment results being realized. Again, no valid distributable event. Since the guy got his money, why not her?

Unlike distribution #1, the plan administrator came to us to request election paperwork for this distribution #2. After hearing the details, and the "justification" created by distribution #1, we explain that the distribution is not allowed. While distribution #2 was stopped, we still have the problem of distribution #1.

Now the problem is how do you fix distribution #1?