The participant named his spouse as primary beneficiary and his son as contingent beneficiary. The beneficiary designation form does not say under what conditions the contingent beneficiary will receive the death benefit nor does the plan. The plan document's beneficiary hierarchy is the spouse then the participant's estate if the participant does not designate a beneficiary.

The participant died before his required beginning date and the spouse disclaimed the death benefit before 9/30 of the year after participant's death. Who gets the death benefit the contingent beneficiary or the estate?

I always view a contingent beneficiary as an individual who would get the death benefit if the primary beneficiary(ies) were to die. I can find no cite that would state otherwise. I assume that the beneficiary designation form could specifically state that the contingent beneficiary receives the death benefit if the primary beneficiary dies or disclaims the death benefit, but that is not the case in this scenario.

Thanks.

I'm not an expert by any means in the area of NQDC, but know just enough to be dangerous...I'd previously heard that there were several circumstances that could put a NQ plan (or the NQ participant) at risk for taxation for amounts deferred on behalf of the participant.

Assuming it's a program that looks like a 401k and recordkept by a professional recordkeeper, I think I'd heard that having participants exercise 'too much control' (perhaps as in daily transaction access capability), and/or having the participant accounts 'fully funded' (with the mutual funds tracked) were indications that the participant exercised control that could result in constructive receipt.

There may be other conditions that were mentioned as well, but I suspect that those were the two that drew my attention the most...

Are those two things mentioned (daily access and full funding) real issues for NQ plans? Thanks for any info.

Company A sponsors 401(k) plan that provides for immediate 100% vesting of employer matching contributions. Company B's plan provides that employer matching contributions are subject to 3-year cliff schedule. Company A's 401(k) will merge into Company B 401(k) plan. Do participants of Company B who have at least three years of service at time of merger have the right to remain on the 100% immediate vesting schedule for employer matching contributions post-merger? ERISA Outline Book indicates yes. Is this the consensus interpretation of Code § 411(a)(10)(B)?

I'm the consultant on a stand alone profit sharing plan, no EE deferrals permitted.

The client uses a discretionary formula.

Past years they have made annual contributions in the area of $15,000 - $20,000.

2004 they did one for $5,000, and zero for 2005 and 2006.

Does the discretionary formula allow for this, or would their still be a "substantial and recurring" issue?

Thanks in advance.

403(b) funded with individual contracts. The intent is to establish a new 403(b) funded by a group investment arrangement, including employer contributions mid-year (7-1-07). The employer wants to go safe harbor for ACP (employer contributions in the 403(b)) mid-year.

Are the rules applicable to 403(b) safe harbors the same as 401(k) in that there must be at least 3 months left in the plan year for a new plan, UNLESS the new plan is a successor plan, in which case must be 12 months. Would this second 403(b) arrangement be considered a successor plan?

Is the solution to make the second 403(b) plan year 7-1 to 6-30 and then change the plan year in subsequent years if needed?

As a result of a divorce setlement, my husband needs to pay my health insurance through his company.

That time will soon end.

How long do I have after that date to enroll in some sort of COBRA plan to prevent any lapse in coverage before I arrange for my own health insurance?

What would happen if my original coverage were to lapse before I had filled out a COBRA application and to require treatment?

Would such treatment be covered retroactively if it were to occur within 1 or 2 months of my original health care plan expiring?

Hoping somebody can help me out. I must be missing a wrinkle or something obvious but do not recall hearing this issue specifically addressed and do not see in the final regulations a way to cover an employee under the 2 times pay separation pay plan exception if the employee was hired in the same year as the year of termination and thus had no compensation from the service recipient in the the year prior to the termination year.

Is it supposed to be the case that the separation pay plan exception only applies to employees that were employed with the employer for at least part of the preceding year or is this interpreted as simply allowing 2 times the employee's annual rate of pay at time of termination in such situations? Unfortunately, the terms in the final regulations do not appear to be defined or cross-referenced in a way that helps clarify this issue.

A client uses a single plan document for two employers in different controlled groups. At first, we thought that we could file this as a multiple employer plan in Cycle B. However, we realized that because there is a separate trust for each group, it is not a multiple employer plan. Unfortunately, this left us with two separate plans, one of which should have been filed in Cycle A. The other one is in Cycle D. Has there been any guidance or gossip on filing late?

If a qualified public safety employee - age 50 - rolled a portion of his DB plan from a governmental plan into a 457 plan administered by that same employer - does the 457 plan have to track the money separately so the participant does not have to pay the 10% if he takes a distribution from the DC plan from that rollover money prior to turning age 59 1/2? As you know, we currently track rollover money separately in 457 plans as it does not take on the attributes of the 457 plan, but I'm not sure Question 9 in IRS Notice 2007-7 addresses 457 plans when it says specifically that the relief from the 10% does not follow the money from the DB to DC. Can someone help me with their interpretation of this provision? Thanks.

notice20077.end.pdf

PYE is 6/30. Limitation year is also 7/1 - 6/30. A group of highly paid ee's hit the comp limit, but the payroll system failed to shutoff contribution calculations so they continued to receive contributions (match and fixed % amount). Thinking that it would be ok to just pull out (reverse) the 'excess contribution' prior to PYE with any earnings? Any other suggestions?

I have a plan where the participants individually invest... and the plan sponsor lets them invest in about everything under the sun (all legal of course)... They get quarterly statements from all their investment companies.... to comply with ppa, do i have to have a combined statement with the PD and vesting language or can i send a notice explaining that they recieve statements from so and so and the newly required language?

I really don't know much about litigation, which is the reason for this post. I'm trying to get a grasp of how the statute of limitations works in context of ERISA claims. I know that much depends on the basis of the claim as ERISA has a 6 year SOL for fiduciary breaches. But what about nonfiduciary claims? I think courts generally go with state SOLs. Is that right? Would they use a SOL for breach of contract in the case of this kind of claim? In general, how long is that....3 years, more?

Is an employer required to notify a participant when/if the 6 month suspension period is up?

I'm curious to hear how others are treating this.

Okay, just a small peeve but thought it might be worth asking. Is it possible to change the setup for the message board so it won't automatically replace a letter C in parentheses with the copyright symbol? ©

501©3) Employer currently has separate profit sharing plan ('ER $) and 403(b) plan (only employee deferrals). The PSP will only make contributions to employees who participate in the 403(b) (ACP required).

Employer (or someone advising them) now wants to have one plan - an ERISA 403(b) - Not interested in a 401(k). Can this be accomplished by -

1. adding 403(b) deferrals to the qualified PSP? Does this mean the existing 403(b) elective deferrals must remain in the existing 403(b) plan unless they can be rolled via an eligible rollover distribution? OR, conversely

2. add an employer contribution to the existing 403(b) plan, terminate the PSP and rollover distributions to the 403(b)?

ERISA Section 101(i)(2)(E) requires Notice to be given to the issuers of employer securities subject to the blackout period. What form of notice is typically given when it's the plan sponsor's stock that will be subject to the b/out? A letter from the plan committee to the board?

Mystery solved

Just got word from the great and powerful guru master of the web site

to quote

"Lemme put 'em back.

I guess I got into a "housecleaning" fit and should have run these

changes past the group before implementing them. I was trying to make

the board easier to use and less cluttered. Probably dumb to implement

changes affecting the community without consulting the community <g>

Please let the poster know that avatars are back up."

so I guess we can once again see such famous pictures of Blinky the 3 eyed fish and others!

We are a smaller sized TPA holding a seminar for our clients.

Does anyone know of a company that provides management of seminars including perhaps hosting a website rsvp and accepts credit cards to pay for the cost of the seminar?

thanks!

I am looking to contact someone with expertise in the area of disability benefits offered by the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and knowledgable about the differences between the two systems, and about Combat Related Special Compensation.

I have posted this message in Health Plans - General, but wanted to post here as well in case anyone had expertise in this particular area.

I am looking to contact someone with expertise in the area of disability benefits offered by the Defense Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and knowledgable about the differences between the two systems, and about Combat Related Special Compensation.