I have a Plan that is part of a control group with 4 adopting employers. Each adopting employer signed a supplemental participation agreement to "join" the Plan.

Each of these adopting employers has now cuanged their legal name. I've amended the Plan to change the legal name of the Plan and the sponsoring "Employer", but I'm not sure of the best way to change the name of the adopting employers. Should I do new supplemental participation agreements in the new names or just some short amendment type document for each? I don't see this as a Plan amendment, per se. Right now I'm thinking of just doing an "amendment to supplemental participation agreement" for each of the 4 adopting employers.

I am little confused about how and when the 402(g) limit applies to NQDC plans linked to 401(k)s. I believe that the 402(g) limit will apply to NQDC contributions only if there is this mid-year type of election (for example, NQDC contributions kick in mid-year once the 401(k) plan fills up). I also believe that the 402(g) limit would not apply to the NQDC plan where the NQDC plan fills up first and is then reduced by the maximum allowable contribution to the 401(k) (as explained in example 12 of the proposed regulations). Does anyone agree with this or have any comments?

A small plan purchased an annuity for a participant.

How should this transaction be disclosed on the 5500? Distribution on item 2e of Schedule I in the amount of the annuity purchase?

Should a 1099-R be prepared for the participant?

Thank you.

Is there any reason why you could not use a non-whole number (ie. 1.5 years) as the eligibility requirement for the SEP?

The company is two years old and some of the non-key employees do not have 1.5 full yrs of service, and the employer would like to exclude them in this first year.

Thanks,

New client

Partnership - Profit Sharing Plan (no 401k) with 2 Partners and the rest are NHCE.

Comparibility formula - Group A Partners Group B all others

One partner wants to "elect out" or not receive his allocation of contribution.

Issues - deemed CODA? Failure to follow plan document; failure to satisfy 401k

What are the IRS ramificiations of this situation?

I'm new to the not-for-profit world and the ORMDD Health Initative is a little confusing. While we have come up with a plan and identified our employees, we are going to fund the HRA periodically, most likely monthly. We are funding monthly to account for changes in employee eligibility and so we do not have to fund the HRA up front. This poses an administration challenge, plus notification to our HRA administrator regarding changes, on a timely basis, may also be challenging.

Out of 1500+/- employees we have about 1100+/- eligible for these funds.

What are others doing regarding this?

I recently took out two loans on my 403(b) plans, one for $8000 and another for $4000. Well I started to make payments back and came up on the short end. My loans are now in default for $7,290.94 which is reportable and $3,262.53. What will happen to me now? What am I looking at for the penalties? is it bad or somewhat bad. I want to get an idea of how much this will affect me short-term long-term? Please help me so I can budget properly

A SIMPLE plan which uses the 5k earning in year as eligibility; hired a new employee in Oct of 2005. This employee will earn at least 5k in 2005. When is this employee eligible? The 60 day notices for current employees goes on August 31. So is she eligibile in Jan of 2006 or Nov 2006? Thanks

We have a client who had a loan in a 401(k) pension plan. Before terminating her employment she took a partial distribution of 50% of the loan. She was 1099 for that amount in the year she took the distribution.

The record keeper retained the entire 100% amount of the loan on the books as a liability of the plan. Upon final distribution/rollover of the account, the record keeper charged interest on entire loan liability even tho 50% of the loan had been previously 1099'd. Is this accurate? The employee feels that the accrued interest should have only been on 50% of the loan rather than 100%. Thanks for your help

I've installed the 2005 5500 software we received from Relius but when I get into Government Forms, there is not an option in the right hand corner of the first box for 2005. I believe I would need to carry forward the information from 2004, but there is no indication if I can do this with 2004 to 2005 information. I don't want to lose any information which is why I'm being extremely cautious (plus this is my first go-around with anything 5500 related).

If you were going to calculate a lump sum distribution payable today, based on the 415 max. would you use 5.5% (assuming they will retroactively change it back) or the current 417(e) rate (recognize that the PFEA provisions have expired).

This is more of a pole. I'm pretty sure the current law allows me to use the 417(e) limit, but does anyone see any potential problems using it?

I guess I am worried about the potential of a future, retro-active change.

Hope this doesn't sound like a stupid question!

Does the recenlty released Roth 401(k) regulations pertain to the 403(b) as well? I was under the impression that the Roth was going to be avilable as both a 401(k) and 403(b)????

Thank You!

for anyone familiar with relius record keeping can you tell me if there is a method for charging terminees the participant fee for keeping their accounts in the plan? the record keeping people in my office are telling me they dont know of an a method for doing this, however, i find that hard to believe in light of the fact that the law allows you to do this.

The following two plans are offered to the employee: 401k and 457 (governmental). What is the maximum that can be deferred for 2006? The employee can catch up the full three year amount on the 457 plan. I think it is 15,000+15,000 for 457 and another 15,000 for 401k for a total of $45,000. Does this sound right?

Thanks

Are these deferrals listed in box 1 or 5 of W-2 wages?

Plan participant turns 65 and terminates with less than 100% vested. Plan's definition of Normal Retirement Age is later of 65 or 5th anniversary of plan participation.

Does this plan participant ever become fully vested? DC Plan.

Can you have negative income under Section 83? If the value of the property when the restriction lapses is less than the amount paid for it, what happens? The regs provide that compensation equals the excess of FMV on vest over amoount paid. In our case, this number is a negative. Does it offset other W-2 wages or what???

How do most companies handle pay increases while an employee is on a Short-Term Disability Leave ? For example, our company grants pay increases on 1/1. If someone is on STD on 1/1, do most companies wait until the employee returns to work to process the pay increase. Secondly, if the employee returns to work, is the comp typically change retro-active ?

I have to do the 2005 valuation for a plan that did not make it's 2004 minimum required contribution. The 2004 5500 shows the missed payment as a contribution receivable. As yet the contribution has not been made and I doubt that it will be made anytime soon.

How is the missed contribution handled for the 2005 valuation assets? If it is omitted it would be like taking a double hit since there is already a funding deficiency attributable to the missed contribution, so carry it as a receivable?

I would appreciate others' thoughts on whether an exercise price for an option that is not established until some future date will be subject to 409A if the terms do not clearly prohibit the future exercise price from being below FMV on the date of grant. For example, if an exercise price is to be set in the future in a manner that makes it very very very very very very unlikely (but not technically impossible) that the exercise price could be below FMV at the date of grant, is such an option considered a "discounted option" subject to 409A out of the gate? Is there any ability to withhold judment on the 409A aspect until actual exercise in order to determine if the option really did operate as a discounted option.

I note that the preamble to the proposed 409A regulations provide as follows:

"Thus, an option with an exercise price that is or may be below the fair market value of the underlying stock at the date of grant (a discounted option) is subject to the requirements of section 409A."

Based on that language, it seems any option where the exercise price is not set at grant and could potentially end up below FMV at the date of grant would have to be considered a discounted option when granted no matter how highly unlikely it is that the exercise price would actually end up below FMV on the date of grant.