Facts:

Company A offers a 401(k) plan

25% owner of Company A is married to partner of money management firm B

A broker in the money management firm (not the spouse of Co A owner) is set to become the broker of record for A's 401k

The broker tells me the money mgt co is planning to charge a fee to Co A for the mutual funds that do not pay commissions. I do not know if the plan or the company is paying the fee but I don't think that matters, or does it?

Anyone think this is not a PT?

Thanks for all answers

Plan document says that we use all forfeitures to reduce in the year in which they occur. We didn't do that in 2002. Now in 2003 there are even more forfeitures - and the admin wants us to use of all them (allocate as employer matching contributions) now - so 2002 and 2003 allocated at same time. Is it a plan failure if we do so? Does this make any sense at all?

Has anyone ever run into an arrangement that according to the document is a DB and a DC plan under §403(b)? The client indicates that these programs are highly unusual. The Form 5500 is completed as if it is a 403(b) arrangement but the "codes" include both DB and DC features.

Can anyone tell me if the prior year's ASPA Annual conference questions to the IRS/DOL are available for public viewing. I don't want to submit my question if it has been addressed in the past.

Thanks

Re finishing our testing: We are an LLC that is taxed as a partnership.

Our administrator just told us that if some of the companies in our controlled group are taxed as partnerships (which they are), that we have to turn over K-1s for applicable partners. Our finance guy doesn't want to do this. Can we get out of providing this information and provide something else instead? I have no idea-please help!

Company A overcontributed the match and safe harbor contribution in 2002 by a few thousand dollars each. The plan was to carry it over to 2003 and reduce the amount paid in for those items in 2003. Of course, that did not happen, and they now have determined that for 2003 they not only did not use up the 2002 overages, but increased the overage for the match and safe harbor nonelective, and they contributed more than they intended for profit sharing (they wanted to give everyone a certain percentage of comp). They did NOT max out the 2002 or 2003 contribution or deduction limits under 415 and 404.

Question:

Because they did not max out the deduction or contribution limits, can the 2002 and 2003 overages still be deducted in 2002 and 2003, and just carried over to 2004 in a suspense account? All I can really find on this topic pertains to situations where the overage is over the deduction limit. Here, they have not exceeded any limits, they just put in more than the stated match formula requires, more than the 3% safe harbor, and more than the formula they approved for the profit sharing contribution. Apparently, they made a mistake in the calculations, possibly because they had erroneous comp. numbers.

I have Governmental Hospital (with 501©(3) status) with about 500 total employees that sponsors a Non-ERISA 403(b) pension plan. They have just formed a joint venture (owning 51%) of another 501©(3) organization with 12 employees.

Since this joint venture has only a small (deminimus) number of employees, can they just include them in their non-ERISA plan or will the venture have to establish their own ERISA plan. By the way, the other 49% is owned by a doctors group and the Board is made up of 4 from the Hospital and 3 from the doctors group,

A plan document sponsored by a governmental entity provides that a distribution under a QDRO is limited to funds from some sources (PSP) and that no QDRO distribution may be made from others (Match). The plan has been presented with a QDRO awarding 50% of the entire account balance to the alternate payee. Is the Plan permitted to require amendment of the QDRO such that certain assets in the Plan are sheltered from the reach of a valid court order? If so, on what basis? I understand that a plan may restrict the timing and form of a distribution, but I have never encountered a situation where plan assets are excluded from consideration altogether.

A plan document sponsored by a governmental entity provides that a distribution under a QDRO is limited to funds from some sources (PSP) and that no QDRO distribution may be made from others (Match). The plan has been presented with a QDRO awarding 50% of the entire account balance to the alternate payee. Is the Plan permitted to require amendment of the QDRO such that certain assets in the Plan are sheltered from the reach of a valid court order? If so, on what basis? I understand that a plan may restrict the timing and form of a distribution, but I have never encountered a situation where plan assets are excluded from consideration altogether.

The owner and sole participant/employee of a profit sharing plan that has been filing 5500-EZs every year recently got divorced and now his ex-wife is an alternate payee with a segregated account balance in the plan.

A colleague tells me that the plan can still file an EZ. I'm thinking that since the alternate payee is afforded the status of a beneficiary (e.g., getting copies of SPDs, SARs, a certificate showing her balance) a 5500 should be filed until the year after she is paid out. Who is correct?

401(k) safe harbor plan year end is 12/31/03.

The employer's contribution (3% safe harbor + discretionary) were not contributed to plan until January 2004.

The 5500 is on extension and due 10/15/04.

My question:

Can I prepare the Sch I on cash basis (rather than accrual basis) ? ...... In other words I don't want to accrue the employer contributions on the 2003 Sch I since they were not deposited to the plan as of 12/31/03.

If an employer is establishing an EAP, would you be concerned if the EAP offers "Financial Advice," on the grounds that Financial Advice may include "advice" relating to investing in the employer's 401(k) plan? Would you think it reasonable to exclude such advice under the EAP?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Employer sponsors a self-insured medical reimbursement plan under Code Section 105(h). Coordination of benefits provision states that the plan is primary to an employee's auto insurance coverage. Proposal is to amend the plan to make it secondary to auto insurance effective 1/1/05 for all new hires. Effective 1/1/06, the plan will be amended to make it secondary to auto insurance for all other participants.

Concern is that for 2005 this proposal would create a discriminatory benefit under Section 105(h)(2)(B).

Has anyone ever looked at whether a coordination of benefits provision of a self-insured medical reimbursement plan is a "benefit" under 105(h)?

We have a fund that will have various investors, some of which will be retirement plans. The fees charged will vary depending upon the size of the investment by the plan, individual or other entity. I have been told that charging the different fees to the different groups could cause the fund to become a fiduciary to the underlying retirement plans. Does this ring a bell with anyone. I am researching DOL opinion letters and PTEs to see if the issue has been addressed. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

2 companies were part of a controlled group in 2002. In 2003, the ownership percentages changed and the 2 companies were no longer a controlled group. There is a section 125 plan in which both companies participated in 2002 and 2003. Company B was no longer part of a controlled group and was told after the fact that it couldn't participate in the section 125 plan. Can company B still participate in the section 125 plan? If not, what happens to the payments that were made on behalf of the employees for 2003?

Does the plan have to provide a copy of the policy investment statement to participants? If not, do they need to provide a copy if it is requested?

I received an e-mail from someone on Benefits link, but their e-mail does not work, so I can not respond directly.

......................................

This is kind of a silly question, but I thought that provided you are using 100% of TWB, integration percentage had to be the lesser of 5.70% or the actual base percentage, but as I read Spencers, it seems to say it is the percentage is the lesser of 5.70 or 2 times.

..................

Basically it is the same thing, but one has to be careful about the terminolgy being used.

for example, a plan allocates 3% up to the TWB and 6% above the TWB would be ok (there is your 2 times formula)

algebraically 3% up to TWB + 6% > TWB but this is the same as

3% up to TWB + (3%>TWB + 3%>TWB) which can be rewritten as

(3% up to TWB + 3%> twb) + 3%>twb or

3% total comp + 3%> twb

hope that helps

Where can I find a Form 5500 from prior years that can be reproduced? I have checked the IRS and many other websites but the Forms 5500 can only be printed for viewing not for usage. I know I can call the IRS and order one but that may take too long.

Does the Puerto Rico Code permit the enforcement of QDROs against accounts in Puerto Rico qualified plans? The Puerto Rico Code prohibits the diversion of assets from the trust for purposes other than the exclusive benefit of participants, but also requires that plans comply with the provisions of ERISA, which permits QDROs.

I did search and didn't see any posts re: if that is based on the number of ee's of the er in the aggregate or based on the number in each plan(2 plans same yr end)?

plan 1 has 20 ee's

plan 2 has 10 ee's

plan 1 has 5 owners comp >200k(no other ee's >85k)

plan 2 no owners --3 ee's $185-$190 in comp

would ther be 1 or 2 hce's in plan 2