an ER has a fringe benefit plan that provides for an $8K relocation reimbursement to be used within 12 months of the date of transfer.

the client wants to hire an EE who potentially would not use the relocation reimbursement for 5 years (spousal job and house issues). so, ER proposes to make an exception for this potential EE whereby he can get $7K (notice, it's $7K; not $8K as specified under the SPD) to be used at his discretion over a 5-year period.

1) can a side letter accomplish the ER's goal of, what is in effect a modification of the fringe benefit plan, changing the relocation policy just for this one EE;

2) what about the constructive receipt of the $7K?

it would be much simpler if the EE knew he would be using the $7K relocation reimbursement provision w/in this or next year, but to have a 5-year window in which to exercise the right?

thanks for any help you can provide.

Do i need to report all the financial custodians and institutions if the plan has more than 10?I noticed that there are 10 fields for it. Do we have rulings if the plan ahs more than 10 custodians?

As an attorney, I assist a plan administrator in determing whether DROs are qualified.

I'm about to 'reject' a proposed Order that purports to amend a QDRO accepted in 2000.

In 2000, at the time of divorce, the ex-wife/Alternate Payee expressly waived (in the QDRO) any interest in the pension, but did take in interest in the 401(k) Plan.

Now, 6 years, later, participant's Pension is in pay status already, and ex-wife has submitted a proposed amending order seeking a 100% INTEREST IN THE VALUE OF HIS PENSION AS OF THE DATE OF HIS RETIREMENT.

Since he's already in pay status, I'm planning to reject on the basis of the Order requesting benefits not available under the plan. (Some of his pension has already been paid to him, so she can't get "100% at this point).

This feels funny in other ways, though. He's now in a nursing home. His two kids' names are on the order as his "agent" (but her attorney drafted the amending order.).

Plan is inclined not to accept any amending order, even if they refine it to a permissible benefit.

This is under Pennsylvania state law.

Any ideas on the kind of documentation, etc. Plan Administrator could say it would require before considering approving such a request?

Thanks for any insights.

In the meantime, sorry, Alternate Payee. This one's a no go.

In reviewing the PPA information on adding an automatic enrollment feature to a 401(k) Plan, it states that contributions must be placed in a multi-asset class default investment if the participants do not direct the investment of their elections.

I deal with a handful of plans where a new plan participant receives a brokerage acccount with a designated brokerage company, and then he or she is responsible for calling the "plan broker" to place investments within the account. If I wanted to add automatic enrollment to a plan such as this, what is my default "multi-asset" class investment?

Thanks for any replies.

Safe harbor plan uses a matching formula which satisfies both ADP and ACP safe harbor. The plan also includes an additional Match which is "not" intended to satisfy the ACP safe harbor. This additional match has a last day requirement attached to it. Is this permissible under the '04 k/m regs. and just test this under ACP?

I know the new regs. clarified the fact that an additional match that is intended to satisfy ACP safe harbor can not have an hours or last day requirement. But what about the additional match that is not intended to satisfy ACP safe harbor? Seems odd that a nonelective safe harbor plan can have a match with the restrictions and test under ACP but this would be prohibited.

a client and his brother own several companies with one of the brother's daughters. the brothers want to split up the companies so, at the end of the day, the two brothers own four of the companies and the daughter owns three of the companies on her own. currently, all 7 companies have a single 401(k) plan. as part of the exchange, all of the contracts have to be bifurcated, including the 401(k) plan.

i am thinking that the best option is a termination of the 401(k) plan. i have looked at the controlled employer regs and affiliated service group regs, which i don't think apply. the daughter found an investor who is going to run the companies with her, so that she and the investor will be 50-50 owners. the brothers are going to own their own companies 50-50, so none of the 80%/50% controlled employer requirements will be satisfied and the companies are not performing services for each other, so the affiliated service group regs are not implicated.

does anyone have any thoughts? am i overlooking anything?

thanks to anyone who can help.

under PPA, does the normal form for a single person have to be straight life or can it still be the actuaries decision (like life and 5)?

Prepare to waste your time...

http://us.mms.com/us/dark/index.jsp

ZERO - number of runs scored by Yankees in the 3rd game of the playoffs

ZERO - number of runners advance by the Yanks in the same game

ZERO - number of World Series won by the Yankees in the 21st century.

ZERO - oh wait - A-Fraud did get a hit afterall.

gotta love those results.

especially for a payroll over 200 Million.

Saw this post from 2000, but wondered if anyone could tell me if they currently use a good application that tracks the information necessary for retirement plan admin. One that can roll data forward from year to year and also flexible as far as being able to pull data for different types of management reports.

Any input would be appreciated!

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...ost&p=18478

Can anyone direct me to anything that relates to procedure/dos/don'ts/etc regarding the changing of Safe Harbor match formulas?

Can you change mid-year? What about notice to participants?

I know what can come into a 401(k) plan, but can a 401(k) distribution be rolled over into a Roth IRA?

Mike

We recently took over the administration of a small governmental 403(b) -- deferrals and nonelective contribs -- and the prior TPA filed full 5500s for the plan -- 5500 + Schedules A thru SSA. Any advice on how to stop w/o raising any red flags?

we have a client who has a US ESOP and a candian subsidiary. the canadian EE do NOT participate in the US ESOP as of yet.

could someone pls tell me:

1) are there any specific changes that have to be made to the ESOP's plan document to reflect the canadians' inclusion (whose income is not pegged to a W-2)?

2) can the ER currently deduct contributions made on the canadian EEs' behalf; and

3) is there anything i am missing (i read the US-Canadian treaty and don't feel like there is any impediment in that to make us shy away from including the Canadian EE)?

i am desperate for guidance on plan drafting.

21 movies to solve during work time...I mean over the week end.

no hidden people, just explosions.

I don't need a real complicated answer to this just a down and dirty response. What are the possibilities (if any) of transferring a cash balance plan to a 401(k) plan? Can it even be done?

Does anyone know where can I find the specific code 1.401(a)(4)-2(b) or 1.401(a)(4)-2©? I have googled for 30 minutes and cannot find these specific sections outlining the safe harbor or general nondiscrimination tests.

Thanks.

as long as you pass testing, can you exclude per diem employees? and I assume it would have to state that in the doc, right? any problems with this?

Thanks for any help.

Under the new automatic enrollment regs, notice must be provided to plan participant 30 days prior to making an investment in a QDIA. However, if a plan allows for eligibility for the participant on the date of hire, does this mean that the participant can't be automatically enrolled until 30 days later? Is there anything in the regs that would allow for the safe harbor to apply to a new hire who immediately gets automatically enrolled?

A thought occurred to me. And then I determined that my thought is not going to fly. However, I am curious to hear the feedback I get regarding my thought.

Say we have a one person DB plan and that same person is also in a profit sharing plan.

We know that the deduction limit is at least as much as the minimum funding (which is no less than the RPA '94 CL).

Say the person has compensation of $200,000

Say it is a new plan and the one person enters the DB plan with 5 years of past service.

Say the first year valuation under the aggregate method produces a normal cost minimum funding of $50,000 and a 404 unfunded CL of $100,000.

We know the person can contribute and dedut $100,000 to the DB plan.

What about contributing $50,000 to the DB plan (to meet minimum) and $50,000 to the DC plan (I suppose we certainly can't go above 25% of compensation)? This results in a deduction of $100,000 which complies with the UCL limit. The obvious benefit to the employer is thus to have more deduction opportunities in the DB plan by only putting in 50k in the first year.

I like the idea, but unfortunately, I realize it won't make it past the tight defense of this post.

Thanks.