I have DB plan that I believe is a "Church Plan" for both US-based and overseas-based missionaries. I believe that all participants are US citizens. The mission pays their wages, but only withholds taxes for the US-based missionaries.

I can't tell yet whether the plan is an "electing" or "non-electing" church plan w/re participation/vesting/funding, etc. I believe that they are acting as if they are "electing" but I don't know whether or not they have "elected" :-)

Ok, so the question here is whether distributions under this plan are subject to the 20% mandatory withholding rules, the elective withholding rules (10% unless elected otherwise), or neither set of rules.

The mission also has a 403(b) plan where the vendor is applying the mandatory (20%) rules, fwiw.

In the current Pension Answer Book, there is a sentence in question 35:33 (dealing with TSAs for church employees) that says

"In the case of foreign missionaries, amounts contributed to a plan by the employer are treated as investment in the contract or basis since the amounts, if paid directly to the employee, would have been excludable from gross income."

I think the issue hinges on the distributions being considered "eligible rollover distributions", and the answer may be Yes for the US-based folks and No for the overseas-based folks. If yes, then the 20% rules apply, if No, then the elective w/h rules apply.

Anyone?

What do I tell my client who did deduct 401k deferrals from a terminated employee's severance pay? What is the correction method when this occurs? I'm sure it happens all the time. Thanks.

Linda Michals

Gee, I hate to be a party pooper to the Michigan politicians, but does anyone out there know how the proposed Michigan 401k plan (see http://www.plansponsor.com/pi_type10/?RECORD_ID=32399) is going to be allowed by the IRS without law changes?

It appears to me that it would have to be a multiple-employer plan and as such, would still need to perform all of the discrimination tests at the employer level.

Is it allowed to recharacterize HCE's deferrals as catch-ups to help pass ADP testing? If a HCE deferred $5,000 in 2004, can the plan treat this HCE as deferring only $1,000 (with the balance as catch-up) for 2005?

457(f) plan provides for payment of benefits following separation from service. Plan further provides that benefits are forfeited if (a) employee is terminated for cause, or (b) employee quits without giving employer 18 months advance written notice.

Do you think these conditions constitute a substantial risk of forfeiture under 409A and 457(f)?

Does any have any good resource material outlining what groups/classes of individuals should be represented on a 401k committee? Its a privately owned corporation, and thankfully we do not have any employee unions. 95% of our employee base would be considered professional or highly skilled technical individuals. We have a committee that was created to direct/oversee the plan, however its all Accounting/HR individuals. Do I need to have "normal" employee representative whose involvement is not related to their job function (vs. HR Manager, Payroll Manager, etc).

What is the Employer's responsibility for segregating and remitting 403(b) contributions to the recordkeeper? [Also, does anyone know the code / reg under which this is listed?]

What are the penalties if contributions are not timely remitted?

Thanks for your help!!

I have never given this much thought, but this was presented to me today from a broker:

A company has two employees, a husband and wife. Both are over 50. The owner makes $188,000 and the spouse makes $44,000. Both defer $15,000 for 2006 and make use of the $5,000 catch-up. They make an employer contribution of 25% of the payroll in the amount of $58,000. They split the contribution between them, $29,000 each. In this example, the spouse, who makes $44,000 will receive total benefits of $49,000. At first look, this seemed incorrect, but after a quick review, it passes 404 and 415 limits and looks fine. Anyone disagree?

Thanks.

Tom and Alice are married and 50/50 owners of a company with a 401(k) plan. They have owned the company 30 years. They have two kids, John and Jane. John is married to Sally and have a child Billy. All work for the company and are eligible to participate in the plan. As far as HCE's go:

 Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year. For purposes of determining ownership, an individual is considered as owning the shares of stock owned by the individual’s spouse, children, grandchildren and parents.

Does this leave Sally put as she is the daughter in law to the owners?

I have a question for all of you who use these boards that may be involved in the hiring process. I have recently passed the final test for the QKA designation from ASPPA. Unfortunately, unforseen events have caused some financial difficulty for my family, and I find myself unable to pay the annual membership fee that would make me a full member, and able to use the QKA intials.

In addition, I am halfway through the APA designation offered by NIPA. Again, the cost of the next test is more than I can currently afford, and unfortunately, I am 1 year away from the 5 year point of taking my first test.

I am of course extremely disappointed that I worked so hard, and come this far, and now have to stop.

My question is this. I will most likely be looking for a new job at some point in the future, and am wondering if it is worth it to try to find someway to pursue this. I don't want to ask if these designations make me "look better on a resume", but I guess that is exactly what I am asking. Would I be looking at a higher salary if my resume showed "QKA, APA" after my name, or would it give me more negotiating power? I don't want to cause my family hardship and sacrifice if it really isn't worth it. I can certainly take advantage of all of the self-education opportunities offered by my company.

Thanks for your time. It is greatly appreciated.

Can ERISA 403(b)'s qualify for 404©? I don't see anything that would stop them.

Can a 401(k) plan offer immediate vesting on employer matching contributions but have a 5 year cliff vesting on employer discretionary profit sharing contributions?

Can a 401(k) plan offer immediate vesting on matching contributions but a 5 year cliff on discretionary non-elective profit sharing contributions?

Can an employer make the same HDHP/HSA available to its employees in Hawaii as is available in other states?

Proposed Answer for Discussion and Comments (see below). Does everyone agree?

Generally no. The state of Hawaii has a unique exception from the preemption provision of ERISA that allows it to regulate directly the terms of ERISA health plans, including self-funded plans. ERISA § 514(b)(5). Hawaii’s Prepaid Health Care Act (“PHCA”) requires employers to provide health benefits to Hawaii-based employees who are employed at least 20 hours per week for 4 consecutive weeks. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 393-3(8), 393-4, 393-11. In addition, the PHCA also sets forth various requirements concerning plan benefits and cost-sharing. Haw. Rev. Stat., ch. 393. Accordingly, an HDHP offered by an employer in Hawaii, whether self-insured or insured, must satisfy the requirements of the PHCA.

An employer in Hawaii essentially has three options in deciding how to satisfy the PHCA's benefit requirements: (1) the employer may buy health insurance coverage that has already been pre-approved by Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (“DLIR”); (2) the employer may seek DLIR approval for a health insurance policy not yet approved by DLIR; or (3) the employer may seek DLIR approval for self-funded plan coverage. At present, there are not yet any pre-approved HDHP/HSA products available on the Hawaii insurance market. If an employer offers a plan that has not been pre-approved by the DLIR, it must submit an application to the state and request approval. It appears, based on informal comments from the DLIR, that in order to view the HDHP as satisfying the requirements of the PHCA, the DLIR may require significant employer HSA contributions to ensure that most of the high deductible is covered by the employer, not the employee.

I've got a daily val 401(k) Profit sharing plan with a 1000 hour requirement for a person to share in that year's profit sharing. I was always under the impression that if you have a 1000 hour requiremnt or a last day requirement that you could not fund INTO the participant's accounts DURING the year (i.e. put a litle in Jan, Feb etc...).

Recently, i was told that my views are too conservative.

Anyone have an opionion?

thanks

Alan

I have an employer who allowed for a hardhip distribution without requiring the employee to exhaust their after-tax accounts first. I know this is a violation of the hardship safe harbor which the plan has adopted. What would be the proper correction method under the VCP? Is the VCP even a possibility?

The only expample in the Rev. Rul. deals with a plan that doesn't yet have a Hardship provision. In that situation you just retroactively amend the plan to include hardships. That wouldn't work here. If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know. Thanks.

Is anyone planning on charging more in fees to plans that add the Roth 401(k) provisions? I am looking at this and I don't think it will actually cost me more to administer or recordkeep the plan due to the software handling it. Something I may be missing? Any ideas or comments are appreciated.

are they included in total compensation even though they do not appear on the employee's W2?

i assume since it is not on the w2 you dont use it but do you use it for testing purposes?

Does anyone here need a list of hedge fund managers? We have an extensive database of hedge fund managers, including names of top executives and their contact information.

We also offer customized data for businesses.

Contact: (914) 301-5710

I have a client who owns both a for profit and a non-profit business. There are 3 owners who currently max out contributions for the 401k and are inquiring about their options to increase contributions. My first thought is to suggest a 457 plan for the non-profit, so they can max out contributions to that as well. Any thoughts or suggestions? Any things I may have not thought about?