In this FAE DB plan, there is an incapacity retirement that provides an unreduced age 65 annuity (sla or J and S options--no lump sum) if one is at least age 40 with 10 or more years of service and meets one of the two methods of being deemed incapacitated at the date of termination. These two methods are 1) a SSA disability award indicates that the person was disabled on a date prior to termination or 2) the person meets/met the "plan" definition of incapacity at termination.

It would appear that it would consistent with the aforementioned final regulations to eliminate this type of retirement or alter the methods of being deemed incapacitated (remove the plan definition method and rely solely on the non-discretionary SSA method) if we amended the plan to do so by the end of this year.

We would like to do so but want to feel that such is consistent with the relevant regulatory guidance.

Trying to figure out how this "feature" of the plan is or is not an ancillary benefit that is otherwise not protected by the anti-cutback rule or is or is not a unpredictable contingent event benefit (as is a shutdown benefit) and thus potentially amendable out of the plan if done on or before 12-31-05 has been difficult.

ok, so there are some duplicates, but as my brother says, who really cares.

this one has 72 movies to identify.

for those that haven't downloaded #1, these are snapshots from different movies. the 'bodies' are missing (the clothes are still there). I guess you would describe it as The invisible man effect.

Besides, what else are you going to do on the weekend besieds watch football.

(well, ok ladies, but then 'WDIK' - I never married - oh wait, I don't watch that much football either - never mind)

Assume 2 separate employers, Subsidiary 1 and Subsidiary 2. Sub 1 and Sub 2 are wholly-owed subsidiaries of Parent and, therefore, are members of a controlled group.

Sub 1 and Sub 2 have adopted the same 401(k) plan. Sub 1 has a match, Sub 2 does not.

Sub 2 can't qualify as a SLOB because it has less than 50 employees.

My question is: Is there any way to treat Sub 1 and Sub 2 as separate plans for ADP/ACP testing? Both Sub 1 and Sub 2 can separately pass 410(b).

I'm pretty sure I know the answer is no . . . but it seems like we ought to be able to do this. Here's why: If Sub 2 did not adopt the Plan (i.e., Sub 2 had no plan), Sub 1 -- because Sub 1 can pass 410(b) on its own -- could go merrily on its way. But, because Sub 2 has in fact adopted the Plan and because Sub 2 has poor participation among its eligible employees, the HCEs are Sub 1 are going to cut-back in the amount they can defer. Thus, Sub 1 employees are in effect punished because eligibility under the Plan was extended to Sub 2 employees. File this under "no good deed goes unpunished".

Will appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks.

Can a health care provider provide health information about a patient to the patient's employer? The employer claims that it needs the employee/patient's information in connection with a first report of injury. I would appreciate all thoughts and thanks!

Participant under profit sharing plan owns life insurance policy in his individual account. Policy is whole life and has a cash surrender value. Participant designates spouse as beneficiary under insurance policy and under the plan. Participant dies; death benefit under policy is payable to the spouse.

Can the spouse rollover the death benefit to her IRA?

FAB 2004-02 gives administrators some relief in getting a missing participant's benefits out of a terminated dc plan. My question is whether the plan document has to specifically permit these kinds of distributions, or can a fiduciary rely completely on the FAB?

Hypothetical situation to make the question clear:

Top Heavy Plan has 100% match up to 3% of pay. All rank & file EEs defer 3% or more so the match satisfies their Top Heavy min.

There is one HCE (non-Key) who does not defer. He has to get a 3% Profit Sharing as a Top Heavy Min.

Does that then create a requirement to fund rank & file an additional Profit Sharing 3% since the 3% to HCE only would not pass coverage and non-discrimination on the Profit Sharing as a stand alone "piece"?

Thanks

An individual was a partner in a partnership that maintained a 401k plan. The individual leaves the partnership in 2004 and establishes his own Sole Prop. The Sole Prop adopts its own 401k plan. Can I count as compensation for the Sole Prop plan purposes the Schedule C and the partnership income allocated to this individual?

In 2004 a 401k plan that was and still is participant directed, changed investment platforms, and participant investment elections were mapped to like funds.

The auditor is saying this is a reportable transaction, since "the participants did not have a choice as to where their monies were invested".

I disagree.

before giving all the answer away, please give others a chance to solve as well

If a plan merges with an existing plan and as a result are accepting a better vesting schedule, what vesting schedule would any terminated employees be required to follow? Would they follow the schedule they were on at the time of the termination, or would they advance to the new schedule?

particiapnt signs election form for lump sum (<$2200)

particpant then dies over labor day before a check is actually cut.

now what? make check out to wife?

I have a takeover case where I need to do the 1-1-04 valuation (in a week!). The prior actuary changed the funding method and asset valuation method 1-1-2000. When the method was changed in 2000, the amortization period for the initial unfunded liability (or base due to change in funding method) was amortized over the wrong number of years. The old rule was used, 30 years minus the number of years the plan has been in effect, in stead of 10 years. Finally, the initial base did not consider the reconciliation account, so the balance test was off from day 1.

So, now I am trying to figure out what to do. I can match the prior valuation using the bad amortization period, etc. I think I have the choice of using the same method knowing that parts of the calculations are wrong or changing to essentially the same method. But if I choose to change to essentially the same method and somehow correct the prior errors, I start the 4 year clock ticking again for a change in the future. I don't think I can change to another method altogether because it has been changed in one of the four preceding plan years. Is that right or do I get to ignore the four year rule because it is a takeover?

Any thoughts or comments are appreciated.

I have calculated the excise tax for delinquent deferrals from 2002 and 2003.

It is my understanding that if excise taxes are not paid by the last day of the 7th month after the affected tax years, additional penalties are due.

I need a second opinion . . .

As I read the instructions for the 5330, it appears our client should file the 5330s for each individual year, and pay the excise taxes we calculated.

Additional penalties MAY be imposed later on if the IRS determines the client did not have good reason for filing 2 - 3 years late . It is therefore necessary to include with these payments correspondence that gives a darned good reason for the failure to pay these excise taxes on their respective due dates (last day of 7th month after the end of each tax year).

Am I understanding this correctly?

Thanks!

Is it possible to be ordered by the court to designate your soon to be ex-spouse to be the sole beneficiary of your retirement plan even if you were employeed prior to marriage and during marriage she got her bachalors degree in phsycology, she chooses not to work while I put my life on the line everyday as an officer.? help

If a person took five years of 72(t) distributions and then stopped taking them but also didn't reach age 59.5 (she's now age 58), any idea on how to correct this?

I beleive the IRS policy is to subject ALL pre-59.5 distributions to the penalty.

Does anyone know if the IRS have a system in place to check to make sure 72(t) distributions were all processed for the greater of five years or reaching 59.5? Probably the IRS system will catch up to this in 2 or 3 years? Do you know how kind the IRS is regarding fixing missed distributions?

The phone rang as we were sitting down to dinner. I

answered it and was greeted with, "Is this William

Wagenhoss?"

This didn't sound anything like my name, so I asked,

"Who is calling?"

The telemarketer said he was with The

Rubberband-Powered Freezer Company or something like

that. I asked him if he knew William personally and

why was he was calling this number. I then said, off

to the side, "Get really good pictures of the body and

all the blood."

I turned back to the phone and advised the caller that

he had called a murder scene and must stay on the line

because we had already traced this call and he would

be receiving a summons to appear at the local

courthouse to testify in this murder case.

I questioned the caller at great length as to his

name, address, phone number at home, at work, who he

worked for, how he knew the dead guy and could he

prove where he had been about one hour before he made

this call. The telemarketer was getting very

concerned and his answers were given in a shaky voice.

I proceeded to tell him we had located his position at

his work place and the police were entering the

building to take him into custody.

At this point, I heard the phone fall and the

scurrying of his running away.

My wife asked me as I returned to our table, why I had

tears streaming down my face and so help me, I

couldn't tell her for about fifteen minutes. My food

was cold, but oh-so-very enjoyable.

I have a client amending its plan to move from an individually-designed profit sharing plan to a prototype plan. Both the current and amended plans accelerate vesting of employer contributions in the event of a disability; however, for purposes of this rule, the prototype plan provides a different definition of disability.

The new 411(d)(6) regs address disability in the context of DB plans, but I cannot find guidance as to whether the foregoing amendment may violate 411(d)(6). Any thoughts on whether this is an issue would be greatly appreciated.

Let's say an ESOP loan provides for payments of principal and interest of $50,000 a year; and the employer can only contribute 30,000 for a year due to corporate loan restrictions. Is an option to come up with the 20,000 difference to use the existing cash in the ESOP which at one time may have represented an employer contribution to pay the lender, and then allocate the shares released with the 20,000? I did not think this was doable at least unless there was a loan default, and then I am not so sure you can relase shares based on the 20,000 payment, but this option has been suggested and I just wanted your reaction. The regulations talk about releasing shares based on and "employer contribution" which I interpret to mean a current contribution but it has ben suggested maybe not.

Owner over the age of 50, contributed 16,000 to the 401(k). Owner's financial advisor moved the 16,000 to her IRA. Claimed that the law allows for in-service distributions. Her plan does not allow for them. No other accounts were affected.

In filling out the Sched I, should I answer line 4d as yes "were there any non-exempt transactions with any party in interest" Do I also have to file a 5330?

The client's CPA is telling me that I don't. I am pretty sure that I do. I hate when CPAs make you second guess yourself.

Client is preparing to go through VCP once they figure out if financial advisor is going to pay the cost.