The Plan provides for a max. of two loans (one per year).

Ppt wrote a bad check to pay off a first loan. Ppt had an existing second loan. Ppt was given a third loan after the first loan was "paid off". Ppt cashed the check for the third loan before the plan administrator realized he had been given a bad check for the first loan payoff.

First loan was re-established. Now ppt has three loans in violation of the plan. One loan has to go.

Is the first loan a deemed dist'n? Should the third loan be a deemed dist'n because it should not have been established?

Ppt states that due to problems with the IRS freezing his accounts, he is unable to payoff any loan. (Could loan 3 be a hardship loan?)

Guidance Please!

Our plan has always required spousal consent on loans and any type of withdrawals. We've been told that it's virtually impossible to remove a spousal consent requirement from the plan, although we can remove it going forward, but we would still have to require spousal consent on the "old" money. Is this really the case?

Are the requirements for plan amendments for multiemployer plans different than for private plans? May a plan that is not amended for EGTRRA etc. continue to operate without amending the plan till the required to be submitted under the new determination process?

Can a state entity such as a Borough or Township that has pension plan offer an early retirement window to only nonunion employees without violating ERISA or other applicable laws?

Thanks!

IRC Section 162(l)(2)(B) says that a self-employed individual is not entitled to the above-the-line deduction for health premiums if he/she is eligible to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by any employer of the taxpayer of the spouse of taxpayer. What is the definition of "subsidized health plan" for this purpose?

If spouse's employer provides employee-only coverage for spouse but no employer-provided coverage for family, is that a subsidized health plan? If spouse's employer pays 10% of the cost of family coverage for spouse, is that a subsidized health plan?

The TPA for whom I work is a tiny division of a much larger company. Management (comprised of people without backgrounds in the TPA world) is being asked by a mutual fund client to have our administrators take on the responsibility of determining new plan sponsors' status as a controlled group or affiliate service group instead of our current practice of requiring them to have their attorney or CPA make that determination for them.

The administrators are not comfortble with this. Several of us have ASPPA designations, one is a CPA, one is CEBS, one is an attorney, several others have no industry designations. We are looking for some published guidance to show management why it is NOT in our company's best interest to honor this request from an important client that they are anxious to accomodate.

Does anyone have any suggested resources?

The proposed regulations for the new mortality tables appear to have conflicts (imagine that). The description says that to avoid anomalies that female table was only smoothed from 47 to 49. However, the actual results table provided appears to smooth from 45. The problem seems to be only with the female annuitant table.

Has there been any commentary regarding what is going to be the acceptable calculation method?

We have a situation where the employer distributed a timely 3% Safe Harbor notice prior to the beginning of the 2006 calendar plan year and then forgot he had made the committment. He made no contribution for the year and filed his taxes without an extension and then responded to our year end data request indicating that he had made no contribution.

I believe that having distributed the notice, he is obliged to make the contribution.

The issue of the deduction is a question. Apparently his accountant is not up to speed on qualified plan deduction issues.

Question 1: If the contribution is an obligation by virtue of the issuance of the SH notice, is there there any impact on the rule that the deposit must be made prior to the tax filing deadline (including extensions).

Question 2: If it's too late to make the contribution and deduct it for 2006, can it be deducted for 2007 as long as the total 2007 deduction remains under 25% of 2007 compensation. He also distributed a 2007 3% notice, so under this scenario he would be looking at deducting something like 6% for 2007

The issue seems somewhat similar to a DB plan subject to minimum funding, but the deductibility of DB contributions is specifically addressed in the rules, whereas I have been unable to find anything that deals with this situation.

I would like to be able to point the accounatant to some guidance if any exists

If a plan has a VEBA set up and along with providing other benefits reimburses medical expenses, does the Plan have to set up a seperate HRA, funded by the VEBA, that only reimburses medical expenses in order for these reimbursements to not be included in the participants gross income?

A VEBA may provide life, sickness, accident or other similar benefits. It seems to me that a VEBA may reimburse medical expenses without having to have an HRA set up. I have read Rev. Rul. 2005-24 which states "[t]his ruling applies to any purported employer-provided medical reimbursement arrangement, regardless of how the arrangement is characterized..." Is this sentence in Rev. Rul. 2005-24 the reason why an HRA must be set up within a VEBA to reimburse medical expenses.

'ab'use at your own risk.

I of course offer no guarantees on any reports, this one seems to be working well for the way I have been running things.

for vesting % to print requires the plan user alphanumeric fields to be filled in

{UDFDATA.ALPHA030} through {UDFDATA.ALPHA036}

e.g. 0 years would be 0% for {UDFDATA.ALPHA030}

1 year would be 20% for {UDFDATA.ALPHA031} etc.

this assumes one does not have 2 different vesting schedules for match and profit sharing.

if {UDFDATA.ALPHA037} is no then the message about integration will not print.

This will print the diversification notice, plus

This certificate prints a variety of different possibilities, depending on if participant has a balance in that source - so the look might vary even in the same plan

(D = deferral, M= Match, L= Loan, P = Profit Sharing, R = Rollover, A = AFter tax)

DM

DML

DMP

DMA

DMPA

DMPL

DMPR

DMR

well, last I checked it did a good job of filtering things out, and usually not printing a source that was 0.

(unless the ee didn't defer). well, I didn't include transfers on some of them, so if an after tax is transferred in that won't print.

but what the heck, it is a use at your own risk, so what do you expect. at least it fits on one page (I think)

I have a husband and wife who fully own two companies.

One company sponsors a safe harbor 401k plan and the other company sponsors a DBP.

The husband and wife receive compensation from both companies and their one employee only receives compensation from the company that sponsors the 401k plan.

In performing the non discrimination testing it appears to me that the husband and wife should have their compensation combined for ND testing.

So for example if one of them accrues a DB accrual of $5,000 in the plan's first year and the owner earned $100,000 from each company then it seems for ND testing the accrual rate is 2.5% (5,000/200,000) as opposed to 5% (5,000/100,000).

Is that correct?

Of course the DBP plan formula can be based on compensation from the one company.

Thanks.

Is there an official publication of the IAM 83 Proj to 2000 with scale G mortality table which is universally adopted?

I ask because I am looking at the projected tables from 2 nationally marketed valuation softwares and they are different. What's more, in one vendor's version of the male table, the q at age 41 is almost twice the q at age 40 and q41 & q42 are higher than the qs in the base table IAM83M - which is clearly wrong!

I also compared these tables to the similarly projected tables titled 1996 US Annuity 2000 ...., both the Basic and the 10% adjusted, from the SOA's website and neither vendor's tables match the SOA's version.

Client maintains a fairly simple plan that will be restated and submitted under the volume submitter program once the program is open. In the meantime, another employer has adopted the plan. There is a relationship between the two employers but not enough to be a controlled or affiliated service group.

But for the multiple-employer situation, the plan would be restated in due course under the volume submitter program with a $300 user fee.

Since multiple-employer plans are in Cycle B, must it be restated this year and submitted on a 5300, with a $1000 filing fee?

I have 8905 forms signed by each of the two employers and had planned to submit with the volume submitter adopters. But I just remembered that multiple employer plans may not use Form 5307.

I think I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that this little plan must go under 5300 in Cycle B.

Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Thank you.

Facts : Governmental plan covers non-employee, elected officials. Though I realize the RMD rules generally apply to governmental plans, how would they apply, if at all, to a non-employee, elected official, that is a participant in the plan? 401(a)(9) and its regulations speak in terms of "employees,", not "participants."

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Participant dies, and their niece is the beneficiary. She is 12. Obviously their parents should be the ones filling out forms etc. How can I prove that the parents are indeed the parents?

I'm guessing birth certificate, but has anyone gone any further than that?

In order to take an in-service withdrawal of employer profit sharing money, must the plan specify both a minimum service and minimum age requirement?

A plan has a 5-year participation requirement in order to take an in-service withdrawal of employer money. Must there also be a minimum age requirement in effect for this? Or is that only for elective deferrals? For example, could a 40-year old take an in-service distribution of all of his vested profit sharing source if he had participated in the plan for the 5 years?

Thank you

I have a client with a 403(b) plan. They have come seeking an HRA and a "Special Pay Plan." Essentially what they want to do is anyone over 20 years gets a full years salary paid out over 5 years. Anyone under 20 years used the forumula that isn't as generous.

I have heard of a "Special pay plan." But I can't find anything in the research I do. Are these the same as PEP's or Final Pay Plans. Not really sure where to go for research on this, might have to hit the local law school library, any suggestions??

Thanks,

Plan adopted by an LLC covers only the 4 members. The LLC is taxed as a partnership. Are they eligible to file a 5500-EZ? I'm leaning towards no, but its weak lean. Probably more out of caution than anything.

Thanks for any guidance.

Have a large client (well to us anyway, about 150 employees) with a small group they are looking to spin-off to a brand new company. They are currently covered by a 401(k)/Profit Sharing Plan which has a 2/20 vesting schedule, and are wondering if they can fully vest the employees to be spun-off into the new company/new plan. I was wondering if there are any legal issues with this? Seems like there should not be, but just wanted to make sure before we suggested this course of action. Any thoughts welcome.

What's the definition of a "disqualifed person" in an ESOP plan?