Assume a plan holds an interest in a private venture capital fund. Do the ERISA bonding requirements apply to those individuals who invest on behalf of that fund?

I have a "frozen" plan whose termination date is anticipated to be 4/1/07 - the plan year runs 7/1-6/30 - the client purchased annuities for all inactives this past December - we are just now doing the 7/1/06 actuarial valuation.

I anticipate 2 bases being created as of 7/1/06 - (1) an experience base determined using the funding assumptions in place as of 7/1/05 and (2) using the annuity values for the inactive liability as of 7/1/06 & creating an assumption change base - naturally the final charges will be pro-rated for the 9 month period up to the date of termination.

It has been suggested that I only value the active life liability as of 7/1/06 and, assuming I change assumptions to anticipate their elections and respective liability as of the termination date of 4/1/07, make the before/after assumption change liability for this group my "assumption change" base.

Question : Which is the more actuarially correct way of creating the assumption change base ? do both methods produce the same base ?

I have a "frozen" plan whose termination date is anticipated to be 4/1/07 - the plan year runs 7/1-6/30 - the client purchased annuities for all inactives this past December - we are just now doing the 7/1/06 actuarial valuation.

I anticipate 2 bases being created as of 7/1/06 - (1) an experience base determined using the funding assumptions in place as of 7/1/05 and (2) using the annuity values for the inactive liability as of 7/1/06 & creating an assumption change base - naturally the final charges will be pro-rated for the 9 month period up to the date of termination.

It has been suggested that I only value the active life liability as of 7/1/06 and, assuming I change assumptions to anticipate their elections and respective liability as of the termination date of 4/1/07, make the before/after assumption change liability for this group my "assumption change" base.

Question : Which is the more actuarially correct way of creating the assumption change base ? do both methods produce the same base ?

I'd like to know how other church plan practitioners handle the Notice to Interested Parties required in connection with an IRS determination letter filing. The material on comments by the Department of Labor is misleading unless the plan has elected ERISA coverage, but it's in the form the IRS includes in its annual determination letter Rev. Proc. I put the DOL comment section in with a boldfaced sentence that reads "Note: This plan is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor under Title I or IV of ERISA."

I would appreciate insight into what others do.

Thanks.

Can a church establish a 401(k) plan?

Can a plan document require that a participant's election be terminated on the occurrence of a certain event? For example, if an employee is on a leave of absence....can the plan document state that a participant's election to defer into the dependent care assistance account will be terminated when a participant goes on a leave of absence? I know a participant can make this election as long as there is a change in status.

Our new CEO is interested in offering executive physicals as a perk. He is apparently interested in a program similar to that at the Mayo Clinic. I have obtained some benchmark data on prevalence and am now seeking more specifics - tests and screenings included, costs - anything that may be of value. Thanks.

A participant of a multiemployer pension plan recently passed away. The participant's benefits were 100% vested. The participant, however, stopped working for a contributing contractor in 1979. Should the plan refer to the plan document that was in effect when the participant last worked (i.e., 1979) or the current document in determining whether the participant qualifies for a death benefit to be paid to his beneficiary?

Thanks!

A participant of a multiemployer pension plan recently passed away. The participant's benefits were 100% vested. The participant, however, stopped working for a contributing contractor in 1979. Should the plan refer to the plan document that was in effect when the participant last worked (i.e., 1979) or the current document in determining whether the participant qualifies for a death benefit to be paid to his beneficiary?

Thanks!

I have a plan that excludes Collective Bargaining Employees. On May 1, 2006 a participant in this category became a salaried employee. His original date of hire was in 1996 and he has always worked 1000 hours.

My question, the plan has eligibility requirements of 21 and 1 year of service with entry dates of 1/1 and 7/1. There in no provision in the plan for previous service.

When does this person enter the plan? Immediately? 7/1/06? 1/1/07? 7/1/07?

Can employers of domestic employees (including nannies, babysitters) sponsor SIMPLE IRAs for them?

If so, are the contributions deductible, even though the employment is not occurring in the context of a "trade or business" (thus qualifying for a section 162 deduction)?

My company has recently increased the employee contribution for Health Insurance and required enrollment prior to 12/1. After 12/1 they announced that they would compensate anyone who had previously enrolled in the company Health Insurance with a stipend of and would not pay out to employees who declined coverage due to inclusion on a spouses policy elsewhere. Could this be considered discrmininatory and are there any precedents?

I have simplified my question greatly in the hopes of getting some opinions from someone. Here it is:

My husband and I (age 41 and 45, with four young children, not all of whom can be claimed as exemptions for 2006 for reasons not relevant) currently have no IRA accounts whatsover, but in part because of some inheritance funds that have been distributed to us in 2006 (a smaller amount) and will be distributed to us in 2007 (the larger, non-taxable amount), we would like to open Roth IRAs from 2007 forward and are considering opening traditional IRAs by April 17th for 2006 for the primary purpose of taking an $8,000 deduction on our taxable income for 2006.

Does anyone have an idea about whether it is better to ditch the idea of a traditional IRA (which I admit I am motivated to do in order to reduce 2006 taxes) and just plan on Roth IRAs from this time forward?

I get the idea that Roth IRAs are the better choice for just about everyone. I would like to cut $1,200 in my tax bill for 2006 which is what I've calculated we'll be able to do if we open a trad. IRA. I am already aware of eligibility, etc. and our income is not very high (about $48,000 most years and about $65,000 due to a taxable-as-income chunk of money we received in 2006) and I've already figured our taxes. Thanks if anyone has an opinion.

Does anyone have a current opinion on ETF's for example TD Ameritrade has a few selections within my account that I can choose from.

I have a Roth account with them in the Amerivest vehicle which is with the Russell 3000 and it has earned almost $600 since April 2006 from 2 years of Roth contributions (max.).

The asset allocation is about 80% stocks (IWV) , 16% bonds (AIGG) , and 4% cash.

It seems to be doing ok but now that the price I paid for the stocks $76.20 and bonds $98.10 per share have risen (which is good) and are now $81.30 and $101.20 and it is time to start investing again now that I can, it being 2007 I am concerned about making a choice on either investing the max. all at once or on a monthly basis.

Am I diversified enough with Russell 3000 (supposed to be a well diversified vehicle) and should I can continue investing in this alone or start investing in mutual funds ou

tside of the ETF to make my portfolio even more diversified ?

Here is some history

almost 39 years old

will be investing forever

will max out the yearly Roth contributions (with a retirement goal of 42000 per year based on withdrawls of 4 or 5 % per year after age 69)

Am investing regularly in an individual account (outside of the Roth account to create additional retirement income) of at least the same amount as the Roth

Any advice on my current situation ( I feel as if I have started later than I would have liked but better late than never I suppose)

I will try to make the background brief and leave out unimportant detail, but please feel free to ask. I just don't want to bore everyone by writing a book

I am 41, husband 45. As of now we have no retirement funds whatsoever (please don't throw tomatoes.) We have also just now gotten out of the red; our income is not especially high. We have four young children but cannot claim all of them on tax return every year. I will spare you details on that. (it has to do with the non-custodial father of three of them complying with a technicality that allows him to claim three of the children including the child tax credit - ouch!)

This year (2006) our income is uncustomarily large (for us); the unusual part comes from $22,000 this year only that we wouldn't normally receive; is taxable as income. It is the proceeds from a deceased relative's IRA that was not included in the rest of that estate. So, added to our income from work of $44,000, our income for 2006 is higher than past years and higher than future years (in the nearly foreseeable future, anyway).

To put it into perspective, in 2005, to be approximate, our income was about $33,000 and we had 6 exemptions, and you can imagine that we owed little tax for that year. By contrast:

In 2006, due to increased earnings and the 22K, our AGI is looking like $65,000 with only 3 exemptions that can be made this year. I worked it up and see that we'll owe about $6,000 in taxes. This is no surpise. We were counseled that we could have received those IRA proceeds as a rollover and pay no tax or take it as cash and owe tax; it was well worth it since we had almost that much debt to settle and it's great to be DEBT FREE. But anyway, since we had little tax withheld, we're going to have to come up with the money, and we can do it easily (due to the relative's estate settling soon) but of course like everyone else I would like to pay as little tax as possible.

So my focus now is on reducing our taxes for 2006. The only thing I can see that will reduce our taxable income is to contribute 4K apiece (8K total) to a traditional IRA (we'd have to open them, and that's no problem.) I was surprised to see that we have till April 17th to do this. We will be able to do this with no problem. Here's my question:

As someone only learning fine points about having more money than debts (I know a good amount about investing but am not as sharp on taxes), I have a vague understanding that Roth IRAs are preferred by most, and that if you expect to have accumulated much wealth in the future, traditional IRAs are not the preferred thing to contribute to (I could be wrong.) I am thinking of the here and now and I calculated a savings of $1,200 on our 2006 tax bill if we can throw $8k into IRAs. Question: Does this seem like a reasonable thing to do, to save that amount of tax this year? I know it's totally up to me, but for all I know I'm making a long-term mistake for a short-term gain (that's why I'm asking people who know more about this stuff than I do). Would it possibly be better to just pay the tax and throw the same money into Roth IRAs and settle down for the long haul (we do plan to chart an intelligent course - we're smart people but have been all over the financial map for years now, for reasons I definitely won't go into, but change is on the horizon in part because an inheritance is being settled soon and we are going to work that money like a team of packmules. One of our children is disabled and we really want to work that money, and yes, we know that soon we'll need more comprehensive advice and guidance.) Thanks in advance for anyone's advice on whether I'll regret opening a traditional IRA just to save that amount of money this year in taxes. (and in future years, too - we could contribute 8K each year, as I understand it, more after turning 50). I don't see a lot good being said about traditional IRAs; I get the feeling people are converting them to Roths in droves. But for my situation, are they a good idea? THANK YOU for reading.

I'm reading through the final 4k regs and am hoping you all can confirm my understanding of gap period income. Here is what I have concluded:

The final regs clarified that gap period income needs to be included only to the extent the employee is or would be credited with allocable gain or loss on those excess contributions for that period, if the total account were distributed. For daily valued plans and plans with deferrals going into self directed IDAs I would have to include the gap period income in the total refund amount. If I have a monthly, quarterly, etc. balance forward plan, then I would only have to include gap period income IF I've pass a mid-year valuation date. In addition the "End Date" of the gap period can be up to 7 days (I'm assuming business days?) prior to the actual distribution date.

My source for this is Internal Revenue Bulletin 2005-5.

In addition, from what I have read about PPA 2006, the bill would eliminate the requirement to distribute gap period earnings, but this would not be effective until plan years that begin in 2008 so with the exception of 2006 and 2007, I can go back to ignoring gap period income.

I'd appreciate any feedback if I am misunderstanding the regs.

Thanks!

The PPA plan amendment deadline is the last day of the plan year beginning on or after 1/1/09. What about for discretionary PPA plan amendments? Must they be made in accordance with the general remedial amendment period schedule?

OK - I never have good luck searching for old threads!!!

Client was using safe harbor match for part of '06. Stopped mid way throught the year with 30 days notice to employees.

End of the year arrives and ADP/ACP testing is required. Do we test the whole year? That would make sense because if we only tested from the termination of the safe harbor, there would be no ACP testing because there was no match from that point forward.

Sorry for what may be an easy/obvious question, but my mind's been frazzled of late.....

Thanks in advance.

I'm working on the premium filing for a brand new cash balance plan adopted 12/28/2006 and effective retroactivly to 1/1/2006. My premium snapshot date will be 12/28/2006. The plan includes the following provisions:

Years of service prior to effective date are included for vesting purposes.

1,000 hours during the plan year gives you the right to receive a contribution credit.

Contribution credits are credited on the last day of the plan year (12/31/2006 in this case).

Is there an accrued benefit on the pemium snapshot date? The participants have the right to receive the benefit, but as of 12/28/2006, no contribution credits have been credited. I've got an e-mail into the PBGC, but who knows when I'll get that back. I was hoping I could get some insight from all you bright folks out there in pension land.

Thanks!

Can anyone tell me if a participant that wanted to take a distribution under KETRA, if they had until December 31, 2006?

C. Definition of Katrina distribution.

Section 101(d)(1) of KETRA defines a Katrina distribution as any

distribution from an eligible retirement plan made on or after August 25, 2005,

and before January 1, 2007, to a qualified individual. Section 101(b) of KETRA

limits the amount of distributions that can be treated as Katrina distributions to no

more than $100,000.

Any thoughts?

Thank you!