HI... hopefully someone can give me some insight on my situation, I got hurt on the job back in September 04..... Went out on Medical Leave in December 04.......The way they have it set up I still get a paycheck every 2 weeks from my company for full pay... but I pay my own premium for my benefits..... and the company still pays their portion of the premium.....Well about 2 weeks ago, I got a bill in the mail for my insurance premium, and on it said that as of March 13, 2005 I had been switiched over to COBRA continuatin coverage... mind you my premium is still what it always has been, has not gone up any... is $142.00 a month... from what I have been told when you go on COBRA continuation coverage your premium at minimum usually doubles...... I am not out on Short Term Disabiity or Long Term Disability.......have not been terminated, or do not stand to loose my job.... I will return to my job as soon as my doctor releases me......Now with all this said.....

How can they say I am on COBRA????

With all that said... if you need ask any further questions, please feel free...

Thank you...

Background: A trust is named beneficiary of an IRA. Upon the IRA owner's death, the trust will pay income to the surviving spouse and the trust remainder is to be paid outright to their 3 children upon the death of the surviving spouse if they have attained 30 years of age. The IRA owner dies before the required beginning date, RMD, and the children have not attained 30 years of age at the owners death.

Question: Upon the IRA owner's death, will all 4 beneficiaries be considered for purposes of determining the required minimum distribution? Keeping in mind that the surviving spouse has only a limited interest in the trust and also that the three children are not yet 30 years of age, do you use the spouse's life expectancy or can you use the oldest of the children to determine the payout? The goal is to strech the IRA payout as long as possible.

I appreciate your comments on this topic. Thanks

Are there any requirements that prevent a recordkeeper from collecting asset based fees? I work with a recordkeeper that has a sister company that is a Registered Investment Advisor which was created some time ago for the purpose of collecting asset based fees from the plan. We do not provide investment advice only recordkeeping, admistratiive types of services. We are getting deeper and deeper into many issues with the SEC due to the SEC registration that we have and I am wondering if there is a way out from underneath the SEC's scope since we are not providing investment advice.

My client has a Profit Sharing contribution receivable that they will not be depositing until July. Can my client file the 5500 before they deposit the contribution?

Does anyone have a checklist for defined contribution plan administration that is complete but concise (I hate checklists that are longer than the report I prepare) that you are willing to share?

Here is the situation. New ESOP effective 1/1/04. Sale of shares to plan, loan agreement, etc. not done until 4/29/05. First loan payment due 12/1/05, prepayment allowed. Employer wants to make a payment/contribution now up to the 404 limit for the 12/31/04 PYE and show on the 12/31/04 statements shares released as a result of this "loan payment."

Plan allocates any cash contribution to an other investment account and permits it to be used for loan payments if employer contributions are insufficient to make the payment. Otherwise the trustee has discretion over how assets are used, but the account is primarily to buy stock directly from any available source. The employer would prefer not to show the cash on the '04 statement and the share release on the '05 statement because the value of shares received will be less than the cash w/drawn.

Financial advisor says no problem w/ showing an accrued loan payment and allocating shares as of 12/31/04 as long as the loan transaction was completed w/in a reasonable time after the end of the year because at 12/31/04 everyone knew that the leveraged transaction was coming soon.

I'm having a bigger problem w/ the participant statement side of this than the loan payment part, although I don't really like either one. It seems to me that the participants are being misled by giving them '04 statements w/ shares. In addition, showing the transaction this way allows the trustee to escape scrutiny. However, I can't point to anything specific that would prohibit accounting in this manner. As far as the loan goes, they are using an '04 contribution to make payments on a loan that didn't exist then. With the first payment due 12/1/05, they can't claim employer contributions were insufficient as of 12/31/04. I would appreciate any thoughts on any part of this transaction.

We were presented with a plan design that included the combination of a Profit Sharing plan and a Cash Balance plan. The Cash Balance Plan provided a large contribution to two owners and a flat $500 contribution to the other employees. The profit sharing contribution was 7.5% and the plans were aggregated for testing (we were not provided with the testing, this is an assumption on our part).

I have only seen the "meaningful benefit" discussed in terms of a regular DB plan with a .5% accrual rate. Are there special rules for Cash Balance Plans? Has anyone seen anything from the IRS or otherwise that would imply that a $500 annual contribution would constitute a "meaningful benefit"?

My thought is that the $500 contribution would need to be converted to an accrual rate. If the accrual rate is .5% or better then it would be ok. Does everyone covered in the DB plan have to have the meaningful benefit, or just 40%?

Assume a cash balance plan with different levels of benefits for various groups, for example the formula for owners is 20% of compensation and the formula for non-owners is 10% of compensation. Further assume the plan passes the general test. Finally, assume that after the plan has been operating for a few years, a non-owner becomes an owner. Are you aware of a citation that would allow the participant to move to the higher benefit level without creating a backloading problem?

Question: With regard to plan design, is there any reason the plan should not permit a beneficiary to a 401(k) plan to change a distribution option from installments to lump sum, or vice versa?

We have a situation where we are required to garnish wages for a participant pursuant to a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Recently the participant has had a reduction in hours and can no longer pay her group term and short term disability premiums because the garnishment consists of her entire check. Should we simply cancel the insurance? Should the participant be given a period of time to make up the premiums? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

I've sort of fallen into handling a 403(b) plan; some questions came up and I'm looking for some guidance, since this is not really my area of expertise.

Client is unhappy with investments, and is considering amending their existing PS plan to a 401(k) and getting rid of the 403(b) (the 403(b) has a match if that makes a difference). My initial reaction was "why not just add a different investment choice?" and I'm not sure I got a good answer to that, but if anyone has any general comments on whether or not this is a sound idea I'd like to hear them.

If they decide to go ahead, is there anything special about terminating a 403(b)? Do you just say in a resolution that it's term'd and that's about the end of it? Or does the existence of the contracts mean that the plan goes on indefinitely, even if no new money is added?

Thanks for any feedback.

Hi! I'm a British journalist, working on an article about the long-term problems facing the PBGC. I'll be speaking to the usual raft of pensions industry sages and luminaries, but I'm also keen to get to grips with the underlying issues by speaking to people who are working at the coal face.

I'd be keen to speak with anyone who has been involved in plan terminations, or is considering this option.

If you have the time (and, obviously, the inclination) to contribute your opinion, mail me or PM me, and I'll get in touch with you. I'd obviously prefer to hear from people who are happy to speak on the record, but if you require anonymity, I'd still be interested in your views.

We are considering rolling a QSERP into our DB plan to help rectify disparities created by the $210,000 maximum compensation cap. However, it appears that we would have to list each HCE out by name and perhaps even list his or her new additional benefit alloted due to removing the compensation cap. Is this true? Do you have to spell it out that way in the Plan document and/or appendix. We don't publicize salary ranges for executivie positions. Any way around this?

Can a Plan that currently provides for a normal retirement age of 60 increase the normal retirement age to 65?

If yes, can the amendment be effective mid year?

I'm guessing that anyone who has already attained age 60 must still be considered at Normal Retirement Age, but at what point does the anti-cutback rules apply?

For example, if the amendment is effective July 1 and a participants turns 60 on July 2nd?

Also, if the Plan uses an allocation based on age at normal retirement, and the amendment is made after the start of the plan year, is there an anti-cutback issue if the plan requires last day employment?

Thanks!

Here’s the situation. I have a client with a 401(k) plan who was owned by a few doctors a number of years ago. A few years into the business, each doctor decided to start his own PC and each PC would own the portion of the client entity. All three doctors adopted the client entity’s 401(k) plan. In 2003, one of the partner/doctors (PC owner) decided that he was going to retire. He did so for three months. At the end of the three months, he was hired as an employee of the client entity. My questions are as follows:

1) Does he have to satisfy the eligibility requirements (from scratch) of the plan as an employee?

2) If not, does he come in immediately as a participant using his past service in his own PC?

3) If he made over 90,000 combined in 2003, but only 50,000 as an employee, is he considered an HCE for 2004?

4) For top heavy purposes, is he considered a former key employee going forward?

I have a real issue I have four companies with ownership issues that change yearly.

In 2003, all four plans operated under on plan document - Company A. There was an ownership change in 1/1/2004 and here is where I am as of 12/31/04.

Company A and D share a Plan Doc, B and C have their own plan docs. Owner X is the Dad, Owner Y in the Daughter - over 21, Owner Z is the son - over 21.

Company A (EOY 2003 - Employees= 250) (2004 Employees = 20 EOY) Owner X 90%, Owner Y 10%, Owner Z 10%

Company B (Employees = 51 EOY) Owner X 59.5%, Owner Y 30%, Others 10.5%

Company C (Employees = 38 EOY)Owner X 25%, Others 75% Owners Y and Z have nothing to do with this company.

Company D (Employees = 40 EOY) Owner Y 100% - Owners X and Z have nothing to do with this company.

What are the control groups?

Also, as far as the 5500, how is it filed for 2004? Who is combined?

Thanks!

Is there a deadline by when a company must match their employees deferrals in a safe harbor plan?

Good Morning:

Does anyone have or know of any kind of "White Paper" or other research that shows the benefits of adding a deferral feature to a Profit Sharing plan.

We have a prospect, an old line manufacturer, who has had a PS plan, but never added a deferral feature. When our sales people met with the

prospect, the prospect said they were afraid that adding deferrals would cause them to be a "top hat" plan (I assume they meant top heavy). I don't have any

census information, but assume they have the "normal" percentages of HCE's and NHCE's. I also do not know if they have any Non-Qualified plans or

not.

According to the sales people, the HR person wants to add the feature, but needs something in writing that states the benefits of adding the deferral feature,

but also points out any items to watch out for when adding this feature. Something from a respected, independent source like a trade group journal

or law firm, etc.

I need to get this white paper to the client before I can get out to talk to them.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Willow

B.Sc Finance Part-Time in BMUniversity at Switzerland,Europe & Geneva.

The program of Bachelor (BBA or BSc) includes either a full-time program of 3 years or a part-time program over 4 years. It is conceived to distribute to the students an understanding of the concepts and practices in finance and in management, as well as forces leading recent economic changes. The University leans on teachers who have a great professional experience and a very high level of theoretical knowledge and can commuicate their knowhow. The programme is of particular relevance to those working in, or planning to work in: Orientations: Corporate Finance Private Banking Banking Insurance Total number of credits required: -180 credits (which represent 1800 contact hours plus a total of 3600 study hours) Length of study : -3 year for the full time program -or 4 years for part time program -The pogram has to be finished in a max of 6 years .

http://www.bmuniversity.com/bmu/index.php

.BMUniversity

A group of actuaries is considering a meeting in Los Angeles, possibly June 6 or July 11, at the Price Raffel offices in Century City. We hope to prepare a breakdown of the proposed new 415 regulations issued today. The meeting might be expanded to other topics as well. If you are an enrolled actuary interested in a peer-group discussion, feel free to contact me directly for more information and details.