Very basic question.

A terminated EE who was covered by the ER's group health plan is eligible for COBRA continuation coverage except when the EE is terminated for "Gross Misconduct".

What constitutes "Gross Misconduct"?

Example: A truck driver delivering a load of furniture to a large retail store puts his tailgate through the stores large plate glass window, is subsequently fired and from a subsequent blood test is found to have a blood alchohol above the legal intoxication limit of .10. Would this be considered "Gross Misconduct"?

How about termination for such offenses as sexual harrassment? Embezellment? Fighting?

Thanks

BruceM

5"] I have a client who was divorced in 1998. (Married 11 years) Ex-wife was to receive a portion of retirement per divorce decree.

Ex-wife and her attorney sent in a drafted DRO which PA rejected and stated reasons why. Attorney was sent another letter and given X number of days (90) to re-submit DRO.

The ex and her attorney did nothing to proceed with Qualifying the DRO. PA sent another letter letting ex and her attorney know, all holds on PP account had been removed.

My Client has since remarried (10 years now) and new spouse is listed as SS. He has been receiving his benefits for 20 months now and the ex-wife has come back with a new attorney claiming she wants her share.

My Question I guess is this...With PP being remarried for 10 years and her listed as SS, benefits commenced, with no QDRO in place, what, if anything, would be the ex-wife claim with No QDRO in place?

She is claiming she thought her attorney took care of it?

Either way, there was never a QDRO in place and it is over 10 years old....

Any information will be greatly appreciated.[/

A plan provides that if a participant completes 500 hours in a PLan Year (4/1 - 3/31) such participant shall receive one year of credited service for accrual purposes. It is an all or nothing situation.

The plan sponsor merges with another company and the plan year is changed as follows:

4/1/06 - 3/31/07

4/1/07 - 6/30/07

7/1/07 - 6/30/08 and so on

So there is one plan year that is only 3 months during the transition.

An employee completes 500 hours during the period 4/1/07 - 6/30/07. Any reason why such employee cannot receive the one year of credited service for accrual purposes? Or does anyone know of a regulation that addresses this situation directly or by means of an example?

Thank you.

2008 AFTAP=.65 and employer contributed 300,000 in 2008. 2009 FT = 1,000,000 PFB=300,000 Assets=900,000; calendar year plan; benefits still accruing but does not pay lump sums

FTAP=(900,000 - 300,000)/1,000,000 = .6. This is fine since Plan does not pay lump sums.

But, cannot use PBF to offset contributions next year (2010). However, if burn 200,000 in 2009, then

FTAP= (900,000 - 100,000)/1,000,000 = .8 so can use remaining 100,000 PFB to offset minimum in 2010.

Ideally, would like to wait until 2010 to decide whether or not to burn a portion of the 2009 PFB. My, understanding, however is that election to reduce 2009 PBG must be made by 12/31/2009.

So, consulting choices are:

(a) Try to communicate this discombobulation

(b) Burn now -- then you can say for sure how 2010 will work. I.e., what good is having a PFB if you can't use it?

© Decide now not to burn (because of WRERA, 2009 AFTAP will be at least .65). Hey, assets may recover an then you will have burnt credit balance for no purpose. However, you still won't be able to use PFB in 2010.

(d) wait until later in the year. Question: What how do you make certification 4/1 if you don't know how much your're going to burn. My understanding - which may be wrong - is you don't get to use the greater of 2008 and 2009 AFTAP until you certify 2009 AFTAP.

Any other choices? Am I understanding the issues correctly?

What are thoughts on the appropriate consulting and cya practice. In the world in which I reside, (b) is the only rational choice. Trying to caveat this is tantamount to (a).

What section of the code or treasury regulations dictates a definitely determinable allocation, and which section cals for a complete plan document?

What sections of the code or which treasury regulation call for, respectively, a complete plan document and a definitely determinable allocation?

Instrustions for line 10b form 5500EZ is as follows:

Line 10b. Enter the total cash contributions received by the plan during the plan year and the contributions owed to the plan at the end of the plan year including contributions for administrative expenses.

FACTS:

1. Owner & his wife are the only employees of the corporation

2. They both are covered by both the plans (One DB & a 401(k) - PS)sponsored by the employer

Should the amount on line 10b include salary deferrals made by the participants; especially, since deferrals were reported on their W-2?

This confusion has come up because the CPA wants to use amounts from the line 10b to compute the total deductions for contributions that can be taken by the employer. We have been trying to convince him that this will amount to taking a deduction twice on the same amount (Salary deferral portion). BUT........... we are unable to convince him. He insists that the amounts are contributions received by the plan. Therefore our dilemma.

Thank you in advance for any inputs.

Naveen

We have a plan, in which employee and employer both make mandatary contribution (say 12% of compensation) like defined contribution plans,

but employer gives guaranteed return on the contribution, which makes it defined benefit plan.

Thus actuarial valuation is required, am i right?

if yes, what are the possible ways by which we could valuate?

Thanks.

Every day another good question comes up.

I have scanned through everything I can find and nothing talks about voluntary benefits - dental in this particular case. The ARRA specifies that the subsidy is for medical, dental & vision. The only true exclusion I can find is FSA's. I have a client that offers COBRA for their voluntary dental plan. Assuming the employee meets the criteria, are they eligible for the subsidy for this plan? My thought is yes - but that just proves how badly the whole law was thought out!

Anyone?

I can’t tie in the reference in 1.414(w)-1 (e)(1) (iv) & (v) (Final Regs issued 2-24-09) to SARSEPS & SIMPLE IRAS back to a section that establishes the ability of setting up ACAs, or EACAs for those plans. Do the definitions apply to the entire set of regs or just to section 414(w). I thought I was pretty good at interpreting these cross references but it seems something is lacking either in the regs or my understanding.

Does anyone have a specific site or cite I can refer to as a basis to allow ACAs or EACAs in SARSEPs or SIMPLEs.

Thanks

This post has been edited by jevd: Feb 26 2009, 05:02 PM

Moved to correct Forum

Sorry.

Trying to take a pulse. Is anyone self-designing the new/revised COBRA forms required by ARRA or are you all waiting (at least a couple of more weeks) for the DOL to publish its model notices? I realize that there is a certain amount of retroactivity built in to the ARRA rules, but that's not very helfpul when your clients are laying people off and negotiating severance arrangements.

Also, has anybody from DOL said anything in public yet about when we might see those model notices and/or other interpretative guidance?

Here is my question - In 2008 an over 50 year old self employed person has self employed income of $3,000,000 and elects to defer $13,000 ($10,500 plus $2,500 over 50 catch up). Is the match contribution limited to $10,500 or can the "catch up" deferral also be matched therefore $13,000?

Any thoughts would be greatlt appreciated

An employer has a 401(k) plan and a discretionary match on the elective deferrals. If not already stated as an eligibility requirement for receiving the match, can the employer, after the end of the plan year, decide that only those employees who were employed on the last day of the plan year may receive a match? Thanks for any help.

Non-standardized PPD Document. I'm trying to track down the base document, familar with Corbel. Deferral, fixed match, and discretionary profit sharing. A participant has three types of contributions. The employer always gives a 10% pro-rata profit sharing allocation, but what happens if this would cause a 415 excess. Does the plan document prevent me from allocating above a participant's 415 Limit? I seem to recall that I would allocate this excess to others. I guess I could reduce my profit sharing contribution so that in the end no one receives an allocation of more than 10%. Does this sound right to anyone?

Article from Workforce Magazine on restricted benefits. It contains some comments.

Perhaps we should have the fourth estate writing our pension laws?SPECIAL_REPORT__Downturn_May_Limit_Lump_Sum_Pension_Payments___workforce.com.pdf

I have a situation where an employer has a Target Benefit Plan with a class exclusion but where a separate 401K plan covers everyone (no class exclusions). Since the plans together are TH, they must contribute 3% to all non keys in the K who do not get their TH min in the Target (all of the class exclusion people who are not in the Target but ARE in the K). There are no other employer contributions in the K plan.

The K also failed the ADP Test. So, I intend to use the 3% TH also as a fully vested QNEC which is permitted. This helps me pass the ADP test. Problem is that 1 of the 5 people getting the TH minimum is an HCE non–key. I really don’t want his TH minimum treated as a QNEC in the ADP Test for obvious reasons .

But if I don't treat the HCE's TH minimum as a QNEC would I have a discriminatory situation since the only PS contribution which is NOT a QNEC is for the HCE? Or, is it OK since that PS contribution is a mandatory TH minimum and that would not cause a 401a4 failure?

Can anyone put an extra eyeball on this one.

My understanding is:

Do ADP test - fail

Adjust deferral % for HCEs.

Tally a dollar amount based on adjustment

Spread the dollar amount to reduce deferral dollars

Then, consider what is a catch-up

I haven't put a pen to it, but I'd love to say

ADP fails

Hack out $5,000 catch-ups

Test again

It may actually come out worse that way.

adp_test.pdf

A Money Purchase plan has been terminated with one participant remaining in the plan. The spouse will not consent to a distribution. We wish to pay out the participant with the purchase of an annuity. Does anyone know of a company that will accept this type of annuity in the State of New York?

For 2008, I've been saying that a change of funding method has occurred, on line 25 of the Schedule SB, and on line 7 of the Schedule R. I'm assuming that the switch to the PPA-mandated procedures is a change of funding method. Anyone think otherwise?

TIA.

in connection with a change of payroll companies the sponsor sent out a notice 3 days advance telling participants deferrals would not be taken. is that permissible? i am concerned it might be a failure to follow deferral instructions and the employer is now liable to make up the contribution. the plan is also automatic enrollment. but on the other hand this is not a blackout as defined by the regs and therefore i am unaware of any 30 day notice requirement.

How are wellness programs taxed? Generally, do they qualify as a de minimis fringe benefit?