Has anyone ever heard of this?

On the one hand, it sounds like it could be a disabled life mortality table.

On the other, it sounds like it could be a recovery from disability table.

I understand ers can fund an HSA, and if they do, they have to make comparable contributions. I can this this on a monthly basis.

1. Can the plan allow the employer to pre-fund an HSA based on an appeal where the ee has a large expense and the HSA doesn't yet have enough $$ in it to cover the deductible? HSA new this year.

2. If so, I think I would have to make the same contribution to other eligible ees in the same classification.

Any thoughts?

Cathy

are loans included in a participant's account balance for top heavy purposes?

I work for an employer who has both a pre-tax health insurance plan as well as a Sec. 125 health spending account. I recently tried to cancel my health insurance and was told that since the plan is a Sec. 125 plan, and the premiums are pre-tax, I cannot cancel my coverage unless there's a qualifying event. I didn't realize that "qualifying events" applied to regular health insurance. Here's what our HR department says:

"When premiums are paid on a pre-tax basis through the Flexible Spending Account, you may only terminate coverage on you and\or your dependents at the beginning of a plan year (January 1) by completing a new enrollment\change form to decline coverage. Mid-year changes are only allowed when certain qualifying events such as a change in employment or family status occur and the change request is received by HR within 30 days of the qualifying event date. If you pay premiums on an after-tax basis, you may terminate coverage at any time."

Is our HR department interpreting the cancelling of health insurance right???

If an employer provides a $50 Amex gift card to employees who complete the HRA, is that somehow taxable income to the employee?

The vendor handles the distribution of the cards, and does not provide a list of employees who received the incentive, citing HIPAA.

I've pretty much decided that I want to begin a Roth IRA with Vanguard (target-date retirement fund) but they require a minimum deposit of $3000. My wife and I have about 10K in our savings, but would like to keep that as our emergency fund. My grandmother had bought me 5 shares of stock in Pfizer as a child and they've grown to over 120 shares now at about $26/share. I was wondering if it would be a bad decision to cash the pfizer stocks in order to begin my Roth IRA. They are worth about $3300. Any suggestions??????

I have the following situation:

ESOP started in 2004. For the 2004 stock was released from the suspense account and allocated among participants. In 2005, a dividend was declared. The document states that dividends on allocated stock are allocated based on stock account balance and that dividends on unallocated stock are allocated based on account balance in the "other investments" account. There are no participants with an "other investments" account balance, as all of the accounts consist solely of company stock.

Does anyone have an idea of how to proceed with the allocation of the dividends on the unallocated stock? Since the terms of the Plan do not address what to do if there are no account balances in "other investments," could the Plan be amended now to address the way in which those dividends will be handled?

Thanks!

I have a small medical group consisting of 3 doctors and their staff. The three doctors are equal partners. The partnership sponsors a Safe Harbor 401(k) Plan using the SH Match and a SS Integrated Profit Sharing Allocation. We are obtaining K-1 information from this partnership to calculate the earned income for the doctors.

We have just discovered that the doctors all own equal shares (33.3%) of another partnership. The second partnership owns the building that their practice is in. The doctors each receive additional k-1 income from this partnership from the rental of the space in the building.

The question at hand is...can the doctors include their compensation from the second partnership for plan allocation purposes. My thinking is that this is a control group so they could use their compensation from the second partnership if that partnership signed on as a participating employer to the plan sponsored by partnership #1.

Your Thoughts...what am I missing?

I am interested in investing money to pay for an education for my five year-old grandson. I've told that traditional college fund investments will not pay for an education if he doesn't attend a four year college. Please help.

Jasmine

I am trying to determine what constitutes "ownership" under the definition of key employee, particularly with respect to stock options that had been granted but were not vested. I need to determine if this employee was key for Top Heavy Contributions:

This employee had compensation over $220k in each of last 5 years (so he passes the earnings threshold); but , with respect to 5% or 1% ownership:

He had stock options worth > 5% of the company's shares on a fully-diluted basis. These stock options were granted but only vested upon a change of control.

Internal Revenue Code Section 416(g)(4)(H)(i)(1)(B) provides that in determining whether someone is an owner of the corporation for key employee purposes, it is any person who owns (or is considered as owning within the meaning of Section 318 of the Internal Revenue Code), more than 5% of the outstanding stock of the corporation. This provision is referenced to Code Section 318 for determining ownership. Code Section 318(a)(4) provides that if any person has an option to acquire stock, such stock shall be considered as owned by such person.

I have also heard that the stock options needed to be for shares that had already been issued in order to meet this criteria.

Can someone on this board please give some advice?

Thanks

a partner in a medical practice has a tiaa/cref annuity from a former medical group that he wants to rollover to a ira. half of the present tiaa account must be paid out in a taxable annuity payment to him, which will be about appx. $10,000 per year. he is 56 so he would have taxable income plus, i think the 10% penalty for about 3 years.

his current practice maintains a safe harbor 401(k) and he wants to maneuver his income from this practice to help offset the taxable income from the annuity. i understand the max he could defer for 2006 is $20000. any thoughts on helping him save a little more? should he elect to defer that $20000 as roth 401(k)?

thanks

My church client wants an easy deferred comp vehicle for its CFO --one of its few highly compensated employees. The church has a qualified DB plan covering full-time employees, including the CFO.

All its employees can contribute to 403(b) contracts or 403(b)(7) accounts, but there is no 403(b) "plan" and no employer contributions.

Since church 403(b)'s aren't subject to the nondiscrimination rules of section 403(b)(12), employer contributions to a 403(b)(7) account for the CFO seem like a good solution.

Am I missing anything here?

An employer has a Money Purchase Plan and a 401(k) plan without a Profit Sharing option. They terminate the MPPP at 6/30. They add a PS option to the 401(k) plan at 7/1.

MPPP has immediate eligibility; age 21; no last day req.; 1000 hours to receive a contribution. Contrib formula is 10.4% of base comp plus 5.7% in excess of TWB.

PS has age 21; 1 hour of service; enter 1/1 and 7/1; requires 1000 hours to receive a contribution; contribution is integrated with TWB. Uses participation compensation for PS allocation.

Should MPPP and PS allocations and eligibility be calculated totally independently? If a participant doesn't reach 1000 hours before 6/30 - then no MPPP contribution? If the TWB isn't reached either in the first or in the second half of the year, then no excess contribution?

Is there no pro-rating of the TWB or the hours like you would with a short plan year?

Is this above an unintended consequence of terming the MPPP rather than merging it into the 401(k)? It seems that the contributions calculated separately are lower than they would have been had they received the MPPP on the full year or the PS on the full year.

Any assistance in helping me understand what is going on here would be appreciated.

If a participant rolls money into the 401k ...can they roll it out into an IRA while they are still employed? I am trying to see in the Plan Document whether a direct rollover out of the plan is subject to the distribution rules in the Plan. Does anyone have experience with this?

I have a client interested in adding a NQDC plan because their 401(k) plan always fails ADP generating large refund. The employer is large and safe harbor is prohibitively expensive. They will limit deferrals into the NQDC so that they will not exceed 402(g). Then transfer enough deferrals into 401(k) to pass ADP. This seems to be in-line with the new regs on 409A.

With this type of wrap plan, when it is time to transfer out of the NQDC into the 401(k), how is the actual transferable amount calculated? I am new to NQ but haven't found any information on this point. Would we transfer shares at cost or at the value at the time of the transfer?

Is anyone aware of any support for the position that the interest credits that an employee who continues working past normal retirement age receives under a cash balance plan could be the equivalent of the actuarial adjustment required when benefits are suspended without meeting the suspension of benefits notice requirements?

I believe that this depends on whether post-NRA interest credits are considered part of the accrued benefit. I'm aware of the cases saying that pre-NRA interest credits are part of the accrued benefit for employees who are vested under the plan, but I haven't found anything that addresses the post-NRA employee. My guess is that no such guidance exists, but I'd appreciate any info or thoughts you might have.

Issued yesterday, by the way.

Of all the stuff I discuss with colleagues in the business, this is the one where I find the fewest clearcut, confident opinions. Understandable, because even the actuaries I've talked to find this a struggle, so for us poor saps who are not so mathematically inclined, it's worse yet.

Here's a question that we've been kicking around, that I'll toss out for discussion.

Suppose you have a plain vanilla DB plan. No subsidized benefits whatsoever, and all distribution options are actuarially equivalent. And the lump sum using plan assumptions is, say, $100,000. However, due to 417(e)(3), the lump sum actually payable is $120,000.

For purposes of the regulation only, is this considered "approximately equal" to the QJSA?

On my untutored level, it would seem that this should be disclosed as being 120% of the QJSA. But is that what is required by the regs? Let's say you are using the general disclosure method, with a "chart" that shows the lump sum based upon plan assumptions, and the chart shows, (accurately) that based upon the plan assumptions (which are stated on the chart) that the lump sum is equal to all the other forms of benefit. But there's also an asterisk that says the actual lump sum may be higher depending upon interest rates - would this satisfy the disclosure requirements? Or must there be a specific statement somewhere that the lump sum available under 417(e)(3) is relatively worth 120% of the other benefits? (P.S. the employee benefit statement for a terminated participant that shows a lump sum distribution amount shows the actual, higher, 417(e)(3) lump sum.)

It seems to me that the final regs give a corridor of 95% to 105%, and anything outside of this cannot be considered approximately equal to the QJSA.

1. Do you agree that I'm reading this correctly and that this would apply to a lump sum under 417(e)(3)?

2. Am I correct in general, but the 417(e)(3) doesn't fall under this requirement?

3. Am I wrong altogether?

4. If # 1 is correct, then is the general disclosure I outlined acceptable, or must it be more explicit?

Thanks in advance - our actuary is going to be discussing this garbage with cohorts at some conference in June, I believe, but I'm just trying to get a handle on it in the meantime for my own edification.

I am trying to collect information for Cafeteria Plan compliance with HIPPA regulations. Could you all take few moments and tell me how your practices have changed due to HIPPA? Do you ask for Rx names with claims, do you lock up the claims at night, are your emails encrypted due to SS#'s Rx names, etc... I am now working with a new company, and I want to make sure we are doing all we can to follow HIPPA guidelines.

Does anyone have or know where to find standard insurance broker fees/commissions for medical, dental and vision plans for medium sized companies (400-500 employees)?

Thank you.

I was at a Corbel conference just over a year ago, and I've got a hastily scribbled note that says "real net K-1 earnings are net of IRC 179 amounts and non-reimbursed expenses".

Now, not that I don't trust myself, but I can't find anything anywhere that corroborates this. Does this sound familiar to anyone out there?

Also, does this hold for Schedule C comp as well? Should I be backing line 13 out of the the net comp?