Can an ESOP hold an interest in the sponsor which is an LLC taxed as a partnership?

A cash balance plan defines the Interest Credit as the rate determined under Code section 417(e)(3). It has always been the plan's intent that the rate be the 30-year Treasury but the language was drafted by reference to Code section 417(e)(3). Now that the 417(e)(3) rate will change effective 1/1/2008 to a segmented rate, would a pre-1/1/2008 amendment changing the Interest Credit definition under the plan to the 30-year Treasury be a cutback? Would the relief provided by Notice 2007-6, while not directly on point, be applicable since the amendment is being made as a result of the change made under PPA section 701, and therefore the requirements of PPA Section 1107 are met?

I have a Safe Harbor 401(k) /New Comparability Plan with Matching Contributions.

The Safe Harbor Matching formula is 100% on the first 3% deferred and 50% on the next 2% deferred. Therefore, the match is 100% on the first 4% deferred.

Can the 4% Safe Harbor Match be included to satisty the New Comp gateway requirement of 5%? Therefore, I only have to give the HNCE a 1% New Comp Contributuion to satisfy the (4 + 1) 5% Gateway test?

We are setting up our 1099-R forms and are trying to figure out how to report the $3000 PSO tax deductible insurance premiums. According to information that I am looking at, there is no special reporting for qualified payments of health insurance premiums. Therefore, any premium payments should be included in the gross distribution reported in Box 1 and in the Taxable Amount reported in Box 2a. It is up to the retirees to claim any eligible exclusion on their 1040. We think that this will be too confusing for retirees and they will not know to claim the exclusion. We are trying to make things easier for our retirees by sending two 1099s. The second would include their insurance premiums. I am curious as to what other public pension plans are doing in regards to 1099 reporting of PSO insurance premiums.

Our small company currently offers no benefits to employees. During the interim period before we create a plan for everyone, can we offer to reimburse medical expenses / insurance for one exec?

A 401(k) plan covers both collectively bargained and non-collectively bargained employees. The plan sponsor has elected to operate the plan as a safe harbor plan in 2008 with a basic match, however, collectively bargained employees will be excluded from the SH match. There are no other employer contributions. The SH notice specifically states that all employees except collectively bargained employees will receive the match. Does the notice need to go to the collectively bargained employees who are eligible to participate in the plan, but not in the Safe Harbor? The portion of the regs discussing the notice requirement only mentions "eligible employees". Does that mean eligible to participate in the Plan, or eligible for the safe harbor contribution? Any insight is appreciated.

Hello,

Is an employer allowed to continue COBRA coverage past the 36 months maximum? (The former employee is listed as active on the group health plan. The former employee pays the monthly premium to the employer, who in turn pays the health carrier). I can't seem to find anything in the manuals that says "COBRA coverage must be terminated at the end of the 36 months".

I'm pretty sure this is yes... but is the mortality table used to calculated the maximum 415 lump sums for 2008 plan years the same as the 2008 Applicable Mortality Table?

We have a number of clients who would like to offer HDHP and HSAs through their premium only cafeteria plans. With respect to amending the cafeteria plan document, what is required? I reviewed some websites that refer to the HSA module of the POP plan???? Thanks.

Can anyone help me obtain a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) sample plan for inclusion in CCH’s Employee Benefits Management Reporter? CCH publishes various types of sample plans in Volume 3 of this product, but they do not have a sample HRA plan.

If you have a sample plan (or can obtain one) that CCH can publish, they can include copyright or other introductory language as you see fit.

Please let me know if you need additional information or would like to discuss this further via phone. My telephone number is (317)-254-0385).

Thanks, Gary.

I know how to exclude all HCEs from receiving the SH contribution. I know how to exclude a "class" of employees from participation, but here's the question. Is it permissable to allow an HCE (the owner) to make deferrals but not receive the 3% sh? We don't want to exclude all HCEs because there are other nonowner hces.

Does mandatory income tax withholding apply when a total distribution amount that's less than $1,000 (but more than $200) from a profit sharing plan is made due to a participant's death? Also, can the beneficiary roll over the amount (directly or otherwise) to an IRA, even if the document doesn't specify so? All help is greatly appreciated.

How do I set the plan level default investment in Relius?

I recevied a proposal for a DB / DC combo plan that to my estimation is horribly incorrect. At the very least it is extremely agressive. I put down my thoughts on what I thought was wrong and now I have received back some explanations of why the person that put it together thinks it is correct.

Now I need a little help proving that it is wrong. If anyone wants to help that would be great. I've been in this pension world for a number of years, but I can't recall all the code sections that apply. I typically know the answer, but for some reason I have a hard time remembering what section it actually refers to.

- The actuary is assuming increases in the dollar limits of 5% per year form now until forever.

- He is using a 3% interest assumption with a -9 setback.

- The plan specs lists a retirement age of 65, but he is using a funding assumption that the owners will retire in 10 years.

- He claims this is a floor offset where none of the employees need to receive a DB contribution, because they all receive a 5% DC contribution.

- He claims the gateway test passes with the 5% DC contribution to the employees.

The owners are 34 and 36 and receive over $150,000 in contributions each to the DB plan. The employees receive nothing in the DB plan. He claims the plan passes discrimination testing. There are about 15 employees, 2 of which are yuonger than the owners, but not a whole lot younger.

Now I think this plan stinks left right and all over. But we are at the point where I say it doesn't work and he says it does. I think at the ver yleast this is the most aggressive plan I have ever seen that needs at least 7.5% in the DC for gateway, and I think he only tested the DC plan and diregarded any DB contribution that the owners received in his discrimination testing.

So any thoughts on what revenue ruling or something I can point to that at least shows you can not assume increases in the dollar limits? I can't tell him he can't use a 3% interest rate assumption or an assumed 44 retirement age. it may be nuts, but I can't tell him he is wrong. At least I don't think I can.

We have a client who amended his plan to include safe harbor match as of 1/1/07. He did almost everything right - posted his notice on time, handed out a new SPD with the notice, enrolled his employees on time, started deductions as of the very beginining of the year and has made the safe harbor match to all eligible ee's from day one as well. However, he actually signed the document on the first business day of 2007 - 1/2/07.

Is this a valid safe harbor plan for 2007? Everything I've read says to adopt 'before' the beginning of the plan year. Is there some stretch of logic that would make this valid - i.e. he signed it at the very beginning of the day In operation, the employees were not damaged in any way - they knew about the safe harbor in a timely manner and were able to defer and receive the match from day one.

He just put pen to paper one day late. Thanks so much for your help.

I posted a little while ago, but can someone please describe the loan requirement rules for 1/2 of the vested account balance? Plan allows multiple loans - participant took out a small loan a couple of years ago and wants to take out another. His account balance includes the remaining loan balance that needs to be repaid. Do I calculate 1/2 of his total vested account balance by adding the remaining balance of the original loan to his account balance - then figure out 1/2 of that balance and that is the total loan he can have outstanding (including 1st loan and loan he will take). Thank you.

This was at the end of the recent ASPPA ASAP:

Probably a dumb question, but what is this saying?

In order for a plan to be top heavy, the top heavy ratio must be greater than 60%. One of my colleagues is caliming that the rules surrounding top heavy do not detail how many decimal places must be used in the calculation. He is further stating that the ratio that is slightly above 60% (i.e. 60.15%) can be rounded down to 60% and the plan would not be top heavy. My recollection is that the ratio must be carried out for two decimal places and anything over 60% makes a plan top heavy. My problem is that I cannot find this in any reference book or the regulations.

1. Please confirm my thought.

2. Please identify where this can be found. (regs would be best)

Thank you in advance.

Several years back, the Service issued a PLR concerning a qualified excess benefits plan under section 415(m). In that ruling, the Service refused to take a position on the application of FICA to benefits accrued under or paid from such a plan. I've been unable to find any more recent guidance on this subject--does anyone know if the Service still takes a hands-off position? As a practical matter, what are gov't employers doing about the FICA issue?

I was brushing up on audit requirements, so that I could address a CPA's concerns about skyrocketing audit costs for one of his clients, and in the ERISA Outline book, it says that if the employer sponsors two separate plans, that the participant counts are not aggregated in determining whether the plan is a large plan or a small plan for purposes of the 5500 filing requirement.

So if a portion of the plan is spun off, such that the participant counts to both plans are less than 100, then they file as small plans and avoid the audit if they meet the other small plan exemption requirements?

I'm generally a small plan guy, so I just wanted to make sure that I was understanding this right. Did I miss anything?

Thanks!

Dennis