Do the 100x or 2/3 limitations on life insurance apply anytime the plan invests in an insurance type product? or do they only apply if the plan's death benefit involves proceeds from the policy.

That is, if the only death benefit is the PVAB, does it matter if the plan invests all its money in an insurance policy?

Situation: H & W own 100% of Corp. H & W are Corp's only 2 EEs. Corp has a QRP. It's only asset is a loan on which H & W are obligated (possible 72p problems are being explored separate and apart from this post). While loan is yet outstanding, H & W divorce. H receives in the divorce split of assets all of the stock of Corp. W no longer is an owner of Corp directly or by attribution, but yet has benefits in the QRP.

Question: Has the non-ERISA QRP become subject to ERISA by reason of the divorce since W is no longer an owner of Corp but has benefits under the QRP? If so, what steps need to be taken by the fiduciary (H) to diversify the assets and establish the liquidity to be able to pay benefits (specifically, W's benefits)? It would seem if ERISA applies that the small employer exception to independent audit by an accountant is also blown by virtue of the loan being the QRP's only asset.

We have a client that is terminating its SERP this year. The company has been using search firms to locate missing participants, but we are preparing for the possibility that a few may not be located by year end. One approach is to report the distribution amount as a taxable distribution to the IRS and pay the benefit, less tax withholding, to a bank account for the participant's benefit. Does anyone have any comments or suggestions?

I apologize if this topic has been touched on before, but if a safe harbor that utilizes the basic safe harbor match....is there a limit on how much the plan can fund towards an additional employer match that is subject to vesting? Lets say they wanted to do a 50% on deferrals up to 8 percent of comp in addition to the Safe Harbor basic match?

Thanks

Our PD defines an Eligible Employee as: an employee who is regularly scheduled to work in accordance with the current practices in effect when the Employee was hired or re-hired.

This seems to indicate that eligibility is determined based on guidelines in effect at the date of hire and not the current guidelines.

Who determines the eligibility guidelines -- the employer, our plan provider, the IRS?

If the employer determines eligibility, can the requirements be changed at any time?

Are there any regulations (IRS or other) regarding a minimum number of hours that an employee needs to work in order to participate in an FSA?

Thanks so much!

A DB plan is frozen with notices to participants. Do top heavy minimum acruals stop?

Is the 5,000 maximum for a Dependant care FSA subject to any type of Cost of Living adjustments? It seems to me that the number has been the same for a long time which leads me to believe that there are no increases.

First of all; how low is the stock market going to go? 7000? 6000?

Anyway,

Say a one man plan is implemented where the individual has 5 years of past service at plan inception.

Let's assume we do not have prior years' compensation.

Say in year one he earns 50,000 and in year 2 he earns $0 (but is credited with a year of service). Therefore, the average compensation goes from 50,000 to 25,000.

Say benefit is 10% per year.

Then theoretically in Year 1 his AB would be 5 * .1 * 50k or 25k, limited to 415 limit of say 18,500.

Then after year 2 his AB is 6 * .1 * 25k or 15k.

And a negative accrual results in a negative TNC.

Any problem?

Thanks.

In addition to trying to find if ANY regulations or guidance have been issued about when and how (content) a notice alerting participants that distributions will be limited under ERISA sec. 206(g)(3)©, I have been asked whether or not a plan sponsor has a fiduciary duty to warn participants in advance that their ability to get a lump sum under the plan may be unavailable in a few months. So far, I see no guidance, but was wondering if anyone had a take on this....

Surveying the wreckage of my retirement accounts, it occurs to me that converting my prior employer 401(k) to a Roth IRA is now 50% cheaper in terms of taxes than it was previously.

It's days like these that make it hard to follow my own advice. The rollercoaster has gone into a tunnel and the fear comes not so much from the plunge itself but from not knowing where it ends.

A Money Purchase Plan was terminated effective 5/17/2008. The Plan calls for a 10 % of compensation contribution.

The company paid a large bonus on 5/20/08.

I am now doing the Money Purchase Contribution Calculation.

My question is do I use compensation up until 5/17/2008 and add in the bonus paid on 5/20/08 to calculate the Money Purchase Contribution?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you, Alex

My wife and I each have more than one IRA with different brokerages. I plan to partially convert at least two of her accounts to new Roths and then recharacterize depending upon post-conversion market performance and the amount of ultimate 2008 tax liability. I may also convert from my own IRA(s) depending on the reply I receive to the following.

I seem to recall hearing somewhere that if I recharacterize, I cannot make another conversion to a Roth within the same year. Perhaps my recollection is wrong.

My question is: If the above recollection is accurate, may I recharacterize a 2008 conversion in 2009 and then perform another conversion in 2009 (obviously for 2009)? I don't suppose that my wife's recharacterization would impact my own same-year conversion - even if we do file a joint return.

Thanks for any help in demystifying this stuff.

Michael

If some contracts were issued prior to 2005 by a former provider and those providers ceased to receive contributions prior to 2005, do those contracts have to be included as part of the plan under the final regs? Do we still need to make a "good faith" effort to include them or can they be ignored?

Have a small (under 100 life) collectively bargained plan. PY is 10/1-9/30.

Benefits were frozen under plan as of 1/1/2007. Lump sum is not an allowable form of payment (except for de minimis under $5k payments). Optional forms are equivalent to SLA normal form, no SS offset, so no payment would exceed SLA form. Does provide for unreduced benefit for disability purposes.

My reading of 436 is that it doesn't apply until PYB after 1/1/2010 in this situation.

Calculated AFTAP is under 60%.

What are my notification requirements?

If neither the participant or alternate payee have legel representation, then is it ok that the QDRO is not signed by an attorney? Is it ok that the DRO is just signed by the court and approved by the Plan to become a QDRO?

I am taking the ASPPA RPF-1 QKA test, and there are a few questions that don't seem to be covered in the material anywhere. Could someone point me in the right direction? I'm not asking for the answers, just suggestions, maybe, of something I might be overlooking.

Question 1.) All of the following statements regarding parties involved in plan operation are TRUE, EXCEPT:

A.) A retirement plan administration firm may provide ministerial functions

B.) A retirement plan consultant may be hired to perform the Form 5500 audit.

C.) An ERISA attorney may be hired to draft the plan document.

D.) An accountant may be employed to provide payroll services.

E.) A broker may be hired to provide participant investment advice.

I've found material in the textbook that supports ALL of these scenarios, and yet one must be false. What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance.

I have come across a question that I would guess has a relatively easy solution, but I cannot seem get my arms wrapped around it. I have a calendar year 401(k)/PSP. It has only the two sources: 401(k) and profit sharing. The elig and entry date for the two sources is as follows: 401(k) – Age 21/1YOS, entering monthly; PSP – Age 21/1YOS, entering on 1/1/ and 7/1. (At this point, no allocation conds. for the PS.) The plan defines compensation as while a participant in each specific source. The plan excludes a division of employees from all sources. When the ratio test is performed for coverage (for both sources), it fails. (No fail-safe language.) Therefore, we need to run the ABT. My question is which compensation do I use to complete the ABPT? Comp for the entire year? Comp while a ptp in the 401(k) portion? Comp while a ptp in the PS portion?

The example is as follows: Person is hired on 2/1/2007; They are eligible for the 401(k) on 2/1/2008; they are eligible for the PS on 7/1/2008. When the ABPT is run, do I use 1/1/2008—12/31/2008 or 2/1/2008—12/31/2008 or 7/1/2008—12/31/2008. Is it optional? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I have a client that is asking why an older employee (85) is still receiving a profit sharing contribution when he "closed out his participation in the plan". (He was fully distributed, not terminated.) The plan is top heavy and crosstested, so the employee receives the greater of the top heavy minimum or the gateway.

Client now wants to exclude him from the plan. My only concern is that he is 85 years old. He (the employee) has stated that he doesn't want to receive any further contributions. In the event that there were a DOL or IRS audit, what are the chances that this would become an issue if the employee is the one saying he wants out? (Plan passes coverage/non-discrimination easily without him.)

Is there any quideance regarding how current the fee information must be?

I have an employee who asked whether he could submit for reimbursement his payment of his daughter's health insurance premiums. She is not on his family policy but she is regarded as a dependent under the code and for income tax reporting purposes.

Any help would be appreciated. Tx.