A plan sends out monthly benefit statements to participants and retirees. Every time the plan does a mass mailing they receive hundreds of envelops returned as undeliverable or "return to sender" with no forwarding address. The plan continues to mail mailings to the old addresses, what is the process/requirements that would enable the plan to stop mailing to that particular address? After some many attempts or years can the plan just stop mailing to the bad address and keep the statement in the members file rather than waste the postage to send to an address the plan now knows is wrong?

thanks.

A Dr. owns 100% of two unrelated companies, his practice and a hair salon. His children are not employees of his practice.

can he transfer ownership of the hair salon to his children? and if so, how much ownership can he keep?

Can a public sector health plan, such as a retiree medical trust sponsored by a police officer association, be an ERISA plan? Our plan was advised that we do not have to be concerned about GASB reporting requirements because we are an ERISA plan. Does this make sense?

Employers A, B, C, D and E are members of a controlled group. Employer A, a C corporation, participates in Multiemployer Plan X, while Employers B, C, D & E neither sponsor a qualified plan nor participate in Plan X. Employer A ceases to do business, and has a large withdrwawal liability from Plan X--the shareholders of Employer A do not have personal liability, because Employer A is a corporation (assuming no fraudulent transactions). Employers B, C, D & E, as members of the controlled group which includes Employer A, share Employer A's withdrawal liability. Employer B is a partnership, Employer C is an LLC taxed as a corporation, Employer D is an LLC taxed as a partnership, and Employer E is an S corporation. Here is how I analyze (or don't analyze) the withdrawal liability of the individuals who own Employers B, C, D & E:

• Employer B, the partnership, passes through its liability to the individual partners.
  
• Employer C, the LLC taxed as a corporation, passes through no liability to its members.
  
• How about Employer D, the LLC taxed as a partnership? Does its LLC status protect the individual members from personal liability, or is the fact that Employer D is taxed as a partnership cause the members to have individual libaility in the same manner is if Employer D were, in fact, a partnership?
  
• And how about Employer E, the S corporation? Are its shareholders treated as partners so that they have individual liability?
  

Any thoughts, comments?

I believe a cash balance plan that does not use "more than 10 years" of compensation can use the fractional rule to pass the accrual rules. Therefore, for a cash balance plan whose credits are service-based only, can we can use fractional rule to pass? For example, the participant might get a flat $500 a year for years 1-10, $750 a year for years 11-20, etc.

I'm reviewing a "relatively simple" (LOL!!) deferred compensation plan that will pay employee $XX,000 per year for 10 years when he terminates employment following NRA (no issue there). If he dies before the NRA, the agreement provides that beni gets either the sum of $XXX,000 paid as a lump sum, or $XX,000 per year for 10 years, as elected by the employee.

Is such an election permissible?? To the extent it is (and I'm not sure), presumably it must be irrevocable. Maybe it is permissible if made w/n 30 days of becoming a participant in the plan b/c this is a new plan. Any tthoughts on this??

Thanks.

If somebody is only getting a top-heavy minimum, how does that affect allocations calculations? Where the plan calls a step that is comp to comp, do you exclude that person (the person only getting a top-heavy minimum) from the eligible compensation? If anyone has a spreadsheet depicting such a case, feel free to e-mail it to me.

What are the rules for former key employees who (1) still work there, but no longer hold key employee status due to their no longer having ownership or sufficient salary or (2) don't work there anymore?

How do employees who left before the current plan year or before the last day of the plan year figure in?

Does giving someone a 3% top-heavy minimum help you pass 410(b) coverage issues?

What do you have to with a closing agreement?

I found this list a while. Anyone feel free to jump in to elaborate or explain what these amendments refer to you and why we must amend for them.

Revenue Procedure 2005-66

Notice 2001-57

Notice 2001-56

26 CFR § 1.72(p)-1

26 CFR § 1.401 (a)(4)-1(b)(2)

Revenue 2001-30

Code 401(a)(17)

Notice 2001-56 for EGTRRA § 611©

Code § 401(a)(31) amendment by § 643 of EGTRRA after-tax contributions not allowed?

Notice 2005-5

§ Code 402, EGTRRA 641, 642, 643 rollover per 403(b), 457

hardship distributions?

employee contributions?

Code 401(a) amendment for § 617 of EGTRRA?

404(k)(2)(A) amendment for § 662(a) of EGTRRA-plan not ESOP?

Notice 2002-2 Plan not an ESOP?

Code § 411(a) as amended by § 633 of EGTRRA

Revenue Ruling 2003-65

Code § 411(a)(11)(D)

Revenue Procedure 2005-23 (or 2002-73?) as modified by Revenue Procedure 2005-76

Code § § 411(d)(6)(D) and 411 (d)(6)(E)

26 CFR § 1.41(d)-4, Q & A-2 (e)

26 CFR § 1.411 (d)-3

Revenue Ruling 2004-20

Regulations Under § 414(v)

Notice 2002-4

Revenue Ruling 2001-51

Code § 415 © as amended by EGTRRA § § 611(b) and 632

26 CFR § 1.415©-2(e)

Revenue Ruling 2002-27

Code § 416 (g)(4)(H)

Revenue 2004-13

26 CFR § 1.417(e)-1

Code § 4975 amended for § 612 of EGTRRA

Code § 4975(f) amendment of § 240 of AJCA

Public Law 109-73

Notice 2005-92

Notice 2005-70

Revenue 2002-42

Revenue Procedure 2002-21

Revenue Procedure 2003-86

Revenue Ruling 2003-11

Revenue Ruling 2004-10

Revenue Ruling 2004-12

Revenue Ruling 2005-55

Notice 2007-3

Notice 2005-101

Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005, Public Law 109-135

What do you have to do when you terminate a defined contribution plan? What are the accelerated plan amendment requirements?

P-ship issued a K-1 to P1. It showed an amount in excess of the compensation limit for 2007 ($225,000). On that basis, TPA tested an allocation of employer contributions for P1, in the P-ship plan’s nondiscrimination testing, using the $225,000 amount for her compensation.

P1 did not roll the income from the K-1 into Line 17 of her Form 1040 via Line 28 of Schedule E. Instead, P1 brought the K-1 income into a Schedule C (with the resulting amount from the Schedule C ending up on Line 12 of her Forms 1040). Due to expenses claimed and deducted by P1 on the Schedule C, the end result amount from the Schedules C onto Line 12 of the Forms 1040 was $85,000.

P1 has notified the P-ship that her earned income was $85,000, not $225,000.

My question is not about the appropriateness of what P1 did (i.e., running the K-1 ordinary income through Schedule C rather than Schedule E).

My question is whether for purposes of the P-ship's plan, is P1's compensation for 2007 the $225,000 as more than that was reported as her ordinary income from the P-ship on the K-1? Or is it the $85,000 that she's notified the P-ship about, and requiring that it recompute the nondiscrimination test--and reduce her allocation from P-ship contributions?

If the $85,000 must be used in a recompute of the nondiscrimination testing, and thus part of her employer contribution taken from her benefits, it would appear such would have to be re-allocated among other employees and could not be returned to the P-ship under a 'mistake of fact'. Even with the reduction in P1's compensation, the total employer contribution would yet be deductible. Agree/disagree that the extra would have to be re-allocated among other participants rather than returned to the P-ship?

We have a client with a plan that was amended in March 2006 to allow for Roth deferrals. They were signed and filed away in 2006. Should these have been redone last year? I seem to be getting some conflicting info. Help! I have already been sick this week....

Does anyone know when we have to start using the new revised Form 5330 that requires the preparer to use their SSN or the PTIN? Or do we continue using the old format until further notice?

As we know the 415 regs require the inclusion of compensation paid after severance in the definition of compensation if it is paid by the later of 2.5 months after severance or the end of the plan year of severance, and it is regular pay earned before severance. As such, it can also be deferrred on. Ths issue is if the payment (and deferral) occur after the end of the year but within the 2.5 month window, in what limitation year are they included? A large consulting firm recently put out a release with the following example.

EE terms on 12/31/08, receives final paycheck for vacation, etc. in 1/09 (no actual date given.)

Deferrals taken from the final check (and a matching contribution made.)

The example then says the compensation, deferral, and match are all counted in the 2008 limitation year because of the regs. They go on to say that this rule can complicate year end testing and tracking compensation for employees who are later rehired in the year of the final paycheck. Not to mention bringing a '09 deferral into '08 could cause a 402(g) violation.

I have read the regs many times (especially 1.415©-2(e)(3)) and can sort of see why they say what they do, but I don't see it as clearly as they make it sound. However, if we assume that the payment is made later than the first few weeks of '09, their assertion is not logical, primarily for the reasons they cite as complications. I'm not sure the first few week thing applies anyway.

I'm curious what others think about this.

Does anyone know when we have to start using the new Form 5330 that requires the preparer to use either their SSN or PTIN? Can we use the old format for years beginning 2007?

A copy from the obituary provided by Don's family follows:

Donald R. Levy, 82, of Tuckahoe, NY passed away suddenly from cardiopulmonary arrest on Sunday, June 29th at Sound Shore Hospital in New Rochelle, NY. He was the son of the late Gertrude and Saul Levy, and widower of the late Carol Levy. Donald is survived by his children Cathy Levy of New York, NY and Daryl Levy of South Orange, NJ.

He was an attorney and benefits consultant. A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, he received an MBA in accounting from New York University. He served as Vice President and Employee Benefit Consultant to Johnson & Higgins as Vice President-Human Resources and Director of Employee Benefits at UST (United States Tobacco Company), as Senior Consultant with William M. Mercer, Inc. His publishing activity developed in post retirement, after a few years with Prentice Hall and RIA. He continued with his own publishing business and authored many books, including the Pension Handbook. He taught at the University of Connecticut, served as a panelist for the Practicing Law Institute, and lectured before various professional groups.

In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to the American Heart Association.

If additional information is needed, please contact Don's daughter:

Cathy Levy

415 E. 78th St. #2A

New York, NY 10075

2008 AFTAP = 61.5%

COB > 1,000,000

Amount of COB necessary to bring AFTAP to 80% = 850,000

What is the sequence of events? Must I go the long way:

Certify AFTAP=61.5%

Provide notice of restriction

Get client to elect to burn COB

Recertify new AFTAP = 80%

Rescind notice of restriction?

Or can I just go to the end result:

Burn COB as mandated (is the client election still needed?)

Certify AFTAP = 80%

We are taking over a plan that had as a distribution "non-cash" distributions. Our VS document does not allow for this option. Is non-cash distribution a protected benefit and therefore cannot be eliminated from the plan when we update for EGTRRA document? If true, then either we alter our plan document to allow for this option, turning it into an individually designed plan document. Or, go to a service provider who utilizes this option and keep it as a prototype/VS.

Any thoughts?

Thanks