1 of our 15 fund choices is Brokerage link

Recently we have put a restriction on participant's entry into thsi fund option. We only only allowing them to ut 90% of their fund option to thsi;in other words 10% must be directed to other plan funds

We are updating our new hire kits and advising current folks invested 100% in brokerage link that voluntarily they can move 10% into other plan funds

Must we send a communication to all 401k participants that we are now restricting investing into brokerage link at 90% ?

We have a self-insured sick and STD plan with 1,600 participants

Is a Form 5500 required?

if not, please provide cite.

Thanks

Lexy

Apparently there is a new member of a control group as of 2005 that is a part of the same profit sharing plan as a larger member of the control group. The new group has never made an employer contribution on behalf of its members. The larger group has not made a contribution since this new group entered the plan. However, there have been forfeitures attributed to the older group. Should those forfeitures be allocated to everyone including the new members of the plan? I could have my terminology/understanding off but my understanding is that these two groups are part of the same plan now with separate decisions about employer contributions.

If I understand the regulations correctly, a Qualified Retirement Plan may allow for transfers to other QRPs, TIRAs or Roth IRAs as a conversion, while the employee is still working for the employer and otherwise eligible to participate in the QRP. And further, the criteria for in-service transfers may be for any non-discriminatory reasons, such as length of service, age or nature of the position. For example, in-serivce transfers could be limited to those who have been with the company for at least 10 years or who have attained age 60.....correct?

Conversely, could the QRP limit transfers once the person has separated from service up until RMD's? That is, is there anything in the code that makes it mandatory that former employee's be allowed to do direct or indirect rollovers of their vested plan holdings? Pub 575 is laced with "may" or "can" for plan distributions, but the only "must" I see is for plan RMD's. So in theory could a QRP not allow plan distributions until the employee's or beneficiary's (on death) first RMD?

I ask this becuase I'm getting an increased number of employees who are finding out that the annual expenses of their employer sponsored retirement plans are considerably greater than the expense rations reported by the plan's mutual fund investment options, and they'd like to be able to move their vested account balances to their own IRA as quickly as possible.

Thanks

BruceM

(Please move to another formum if better suited)

Mention the PBGC to the next 100 people you meet on the street. Probably 10 can tell you it’s a government agency. Of those 10 there may be one – and I emphasize that "one" may be an ambitious supposition – who can describe the PBGC’s who, what, when, where, why, and how with any confidence (I can’t). Yet, a blowup of PBGC could drive the financial institution bailouts to the back page of the Wall Street Journal.

In the pre-financial-explosion days, the PBGC would publish its list of 50 pension plans that posed the greatest financial exposure to the PBGC. In September 2007, The PBGC announced that with the enforcement tools PPA provided to keep pension plans better funded, the annual list of 50 companies with the largest pension underfunding is no longer needed. These tools include PPA possible accelerated funding and more employee disclosure and annual reporting to government. With all this protection, however, the endangered species list seems to have slipped away from public domain viewing.

Who are they?

I sense the airlines are stacked up like dominoes just waiting to fall. The US auto giants may not be too far behind. What is the financial impact on the PBGC if there is a run on the bank? Will the US be forced to enter Weimar Republic mode and set the money printing presses wild to stay afloat should such PBGC financial catastrophe arise?

Comment would be appreciated by anyone who has waded through the morass of PBGC annual and actuarial reports and can lend any understanding.

Hi.

I have read in various places that contributions (but not earnings) may be withdrawn from a ROTH IRA at any time with no penalty. But it seems from what I have seen that there is a 10% penalty, if not held for 5 years and not 59 1/2.

I am in my thirities and am self-financing and building a home (not the first home I have owned). I am going to need extra funds because my well dried up, as did an additional one I drilled (meaning I need to drill a third).

Can someone point help me out, and point to the relevant IRS publications? I would like to pull out about $20K, some of it contributed more than 5 years ago, some less than that. If I do this do I need to make a statement on my income tax return and pay 10%?

Your help is appreciated.

Sincerely,

earthscaper

Goal: Find a way to help an employee(s) and or dependents stay with the company even if they loose their coverage under the cafeteria plan (such as full time to part time status) (after COBRA) (not looking for any special tax breaks)

questions: Could a part-time employee pay after tax premiums to be on the same cafeteria plan? Or have some kind of separate after tax plan for the employee/dependent, or have the company pay individual insurance premiums for them, or maybe an HSA (not really familiar with HSAs). Could medical expenses for part time employee(s) be paid from general assets of a company or should it be paid directly from a plan? Just trying to figure out a way to keep a part time employee(s) from going somewhere else if they can no longer work full time.

All of a sudden (starting out of the blue yesterday), the circle-c is appearing in posts rather than the prenthesis-c-parenthesis. Same with circle-r rather than parenthesis-r-parenthesis. It's happening with multiple computers, too. Anyone else having this problem?

Was divorced 10 years ago. Spouse was awarded in DRO part of pension. The PA did not qualify the DRO and both her and her attorney recieved notice of this.. now 10 years later, I Remarried 9 years ago, new wife is SS on retirement and ex is dragging me into court to re-open case. Does the DOL 406 apply here also latche? They tried to get me to sign QJSA, but I did not.

Any help or advice of how I can fight this . What are my options??????

I'm reviewing a plan with the following:

- They have 0 participants at the end of the year

- They have $0 assets at the end of the year

- They had over 120 participants at the beginning of the year

- This is the final 5500 filing as the plan is terminated and all assets are paid out

- The company has been gone for about 5 years or so and the plan was still around because the trustee was working on getting a fair value for employees.

- No one has worked for the company for about 5 years

- The prior CPA said there is no money to even pay for an audit as no company exists to pay for it.

The client (well, someone...) received the typical DOL letter for the missing accountant's opinion. Is there any type of exemption from the audit requirement in a situation such as this? Who is responsible for the completion and the cost of the audit? Do we go back to whomever submitted the final Form 5500 report recently? Do we try to track down any fiduciary or trustee of the plan?

ok my "Crystal" friends...

We put our valuation reports together in a custom format. SO....my dilemma is that I don't want the page numbers on the ADP/ACP reports that print directly from Relius. (I don't want to have to save the tests into Crystal where I know I can edit them there.)

Is there a way to remove the page numbering in the "master" Crystal file for ADP/ACP and thereby print right from Relius without page numbers?

I thought I had done it by editing the master file, but then when I printed the employee listing (which is multiple pages) the page numbers are still printing. I was able to remove page numbers from the analysis and results pages but I think it is because they are only one page.

Thanks in advance!!!

I have a question about an old DRO that was never Qualified by PA and letters was sent to both Attorney and ex-spouse.

Now 10 years latter, I am remarried, retired in 2007, and ex has a lawyer tring to modify so it can be re-submitted.

Does the Doctrine of Laches apply here? Does ERISA 206(d) and 414(p)(6)(A)(ii)? Also what are my options in fighting this as my spouse of 9 years is the SS and they also are trying to get me to sign a QJSA...

Say a first year plan has a 12/31/08 valuation date. It is my understanding that for funding the 24 month segment rates that can be used are those for applicable month, where the applicable month can be December 2008 or any of the four preceding months. So therefore, it would be acceptable to use August 2008 24 mo. segment rates for funding purposes and even if the form of payment is a lump sum.

Let's assume the plan lump sum basis is the 417e rate and the 2008 app mortality table.

Now let's move on to 415 lump sums.

My understanding of the most recent information on this subject (it may have been since superseded) was that the 415 lump sum basis uses GAR94 still and the greatest interest rate of the following:

1. 5.5%

2. plan rates (let's assume they are the 417e rates)

3. the rate that produces a pv that is 105% of the pv using the 417e rates.

So, prior to 2008 if the 30 year treasury for the applicable month was less than 5.5%, then the required interest rate would of course be 5.5%

For distributions in 2008 (assume calendar year plan year) is the only difference the 417e rate?

So for example if the 417e rate was based on the applicable month of December prior to plan year, than for 2008 would the 30 year treasury for 12/07 be replaced with the 417e rates now in force?

My understanding is that the 417e rates are now based on transitional rates that combine spot segment rates for a given month (in this case December 2007) and the 30 year tresaury rates.

Basically, I am referring to the minimum present value rates now in force (i.e. I don't have access to the specific terminology at this moment).

Is my above interpretation accurate or has there been other revisions to the 415 lump sum calculation that I will need to research?

Thank you.

Taft Hartley Funds (pension and annuity) have lost a significant amount of money in the last month due to stock market problems. Are there any liability issues that the Trustees should be concerned with in terms of dealing with the funds that remain. (should they sell or stay the course)

Any ideas??

Generally speaking: I know you can't exclude employees from participation based on age and service. I know you can based on job category.

Can you pick certain employees hired on specific dates and say "anyone hired on October 3, 2007" (for example) is excluded from participation in the Plan?

Thank you for your help (anyone!)

Any recommendations for an employee who wants to make an election change because his employer told him at enrollment that it is OK to use FSA funds to pay for his TriCare premium? Would this be considered an allowable election change?

Our employees are paid twice a month. If somebody terminates employment on the 17th, insurance ends on the 17th; however, premium contributions are deducted from their last paycheck on the 30th (for the entire period). We only refund the contributions if the former employee calls and complains. Evidently, the logic is that employee coverage begins from date of hire even though we don't collect retro contributions, so it evens out. While I haven't been able to find anything on point, it seems to me that we should be refunding the contributions? Any insight or suggestions?

Historically, we have used Line 7 of Form 5500 for our PBGC participant count. We are questioning that practice after reading on page 15 of the instruction booklet (Comparison to Form 5500) that for flat rate purposes, individuals earning or retaining credited service but who have no Benefit Liabilities under the plan do not have to be counted. After carefully scrutinizing the definition of Benefit Liabilities, our interpretation is that we should not count non-vested participants unless our actuary can give us a good reason why we should.

Any thoughts or is anyone else excluding non-vested participants?

Wondering if it is happening to just me.

When I search, the search field pops up behind the Benefits Logo in the upper left hand corner...and it does not permit input.

Today I discovered my in-box. There were three messages in it, one of them from December. I never knew this part of the board existed. Now I am wondering what else I am missing?

Is there a tutorial for this board by any chance?