I've seen several QDROs that permit the AP to elect to commence benefits on or after the P's earliest retirement age, but no later than the date the P commences benefits.

Any thoughts on why this would be part of a separate interest QDRO? For the convenience of the plan administrator? (Complete stab in the dark coming--) Anything to do with required minimum distribution rules (not required by the rules, but perhaps in response to rules)?

Thanks.

I have a profit sharing plan that set up a SIMPLE in the same year. They say they could do this because the PSP was "frozen". There are no deferrals, this is ER PS only.

Is "frozen" an actual term? What makes a plan "frozen"? Do you need to do an amendment or anything to "freeze" a plan?

The PSP has not had contributions in a 2 years.

Thanks for any help.

Do the non-discriminatory eligibility tests under IRC section 105(h)(3)(A) allow us to exclude (for testing purposes) employees under 25 or with less than 3 years of service even if the plan has less onerous eligibility requirements?

Hospitals X and Y are members of the Healthcare System A controlled group. Healthcare System A has already sought an obtained a private letter ruling from the IRS that has established that all retirement plans are Hospital X are "church plans" within the meaning of section 414(e) due to Healthcare System A's status as a 414(e) church and its control of Hospital X. If Healthcare System A controls Hospital Y in the same fashion as it controls Hospital X, are all plans of Hospital Y deemed to be "church plans" as well? Or must an additional private letter ruling be sought to establish whether the retirement plans of Hospital Y are church plans?

We have a 401(k) Plan (standardized prototype) with a 4 tier integration formula for the discretionary contribution and a safe harbor match provision. The plan is top heavy, which is why the 4 tier was originally elected - to cover the 3% required minimum.

The document has the good faith amendment for EGTRRA, which provides that the match contribution can be used to satisfy the top heavy minimum.

If the discretionary contribution is allocated according to the first step of the 4 tier integration, the top heavy minimum is met here, rather than utilizing the match contribution as EGTRRA provides.

Do you think the actual EGTRRA restatement will change the verbiage to permit skipping the steps for the minimum required if the plan provides for a match contribution (similar to skipping the steps if another plan provides for the minimum)?

What options do you see in this situation in the interim? We have our ideas, but would like to see what everyone else thinks.

Thanks for your input!

Does a Simple 401(k) have a plan document?

I know you can adopt the model amendment if you already have a 401(k) plan which is updated, but what if you never had a 401(k) plan?

Thanks!

does anyone have the name and number of someone at the service to discuss compliance program related questions. you can send me a private message if you so desire.

We are in the process of developing an HRA for a union health plan. It is going to be offered to all participants eligible for coverage under the major medical portion of the plan.

This is a construction industry plan, which means that the number of eligible participants can significantly vary from month to month or season to season.

The question is whether there is any legal requirement to keep the account balance active for a certain period of time after the participant terminates coverage. As of now, the proposal is to provide for a forfeiture of the account at the end of first quarter following the plan year in which the termination occurred.

Any problems with this approach?

Around the first of July I filed around 50 Form 5500's electronically with EFAST. I received the DOL Acceptance File for each return immediately after they were transmitted. I have not received anything else from the DOL.

This is the first time I've used electronic filing and I'm a little paranoid. I'm also leaving this afternoon for vacation and won't return until after July 31.

If I have the DOL Acceptance File for each return, do I have all my bases covered? Thanks.

I am setting up a new Safe Harbor PS 401k plan with a cross-tested contribution formula. One of the HCE's has opted not to participate in the plan. Do I use him for the general test or ignore him all together?

Thanks.

Is there a place you can search to find lawsuits by plan participants against a fiduciary or plan sponsor that have been settled?

In particular, a participant who claims his distribution was delayed causing him a loss due to market fluctuation?

Corporation A has a SIMPLE, to which contributions have been made in 2004.

Corporation B has no plan at all.

Corporation C purchases both A & B, in mid-2004. C has no plan at all.

I don't have much in the way of specific information yet, so I'm considering generalities at this point.

Corporation C may want to establish a 401(k) plan for 2004. I do not yet know if they want to include A & B for 2004, or not. This leads to several questions. Assuming they DO want to include A & B, it would seem reasonable for A to "terminate" the SIMPLE plan. But, if the corporation A still exists, even though under new ownsership, can this be done? I'm inclined to think it can't. If you think it can, then I assume you'd have to consider it for 415 limits, etc?

If C does NOT want to include A & B, then I think they can simply establish a plan, and exclude the employees of A & B under the 410(b)(6)© exclusion. They can amend this away for 2005 if they want to, since the SIMPLE can be terminated for 2005. This seems like the cleanest way to handle the whole situation, although it may not be precisely what the client wants to do - don't know yet.

I also don't have census figures yet - so I'm not sure if it would be possible to include B while excluding A for 2004, if that is desired.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. I have a feeling that I'm looking at this cross-eyed somehow. Thanks!

Does how an LLC is taxed affect whether or not a LLC member may participate in a cafeteria plan? If a member is a less than 2% owner and the LLC is taxed as an S-Corp, may the member particpate in the LLC's cafeteria plan? If the LLC is taxed as a partnership, is there any minimum level of ownership that a member may hold and still participate in the cafeteria plan? Cite references would be appreciated.

Private non-profit foundation in the senior housing business employs 9 individuals as property managers, 4 of whom are at or near retirement age. No formal retirement plan is in place, but active employees and one partially retired individual receive group health or Medigap coverage, no-cost housing and car (both needed for job), in addition to salaries.

Employer now wants to establish formal retirement arrangement. Presuming a Section 403(b) plan is established, or nonqualified annuities purchased, can employer continue to provide no-cost housing and/or car to retirees who no longer perform services for the Foundation?

Can you explain the requirement for Top Heavy determination?

Since a participant was not determinied to be a key employee in 2003, That means he is eligible to to participate in 2004, then 2004 gross compensation and officer status will determine the "key" status for 2005? and so forth?

a client just called and said they have an employee (terminee) fully vested that was illegal to work. they used an incorrect social security number. now they want to know what to do with his retirment plan account. some his employer money. they actually dont want to give the money to him. of course they have to give the deferrals. do you let him roll it over or do you withhold and send to the irs. how do you report this if you dont have the correct ss number?

Scenario: Participant terminated employment March 2004 and stop making loan payments. Participant was rehired in May 2004 and did not have payroll deductions for loan start again.

The loan policy states that the loan will be offset at termination within a reasonable period of time after termination. Reasonable period of time is interpreted as being "90 days from date of termination" at which point the TPA firms processes the offset and sends a 1099-R to the participant.

It is now the end of July and payments still have not resumed. The end of the cure period was 6/30/04, so the participant must be taxed.

Questions:

Should this loan be considered a deemed distribution, or a loan offset? I was always of the opinion that there had to be a current distributable event for the loan to be offset. This participant is an active employee now.

OR, can you offset the loan and say the participant had a loan offset during the "termination period", but that the 1099-R was just issued?

Any comments are appreciated.

I understand that after five years I may take out of my Roth IRA up to $10k, tax free and penalty free to purchase my first home, what if the home I am buying is in another country? I am a U.S. citizen, she is from Dublin and has kept her Irish citizenship and we would like to settle there. Is a Roth IRA a good way to get us there?

We have a situation where we have not taking the amounts deferred into account for purposes of FICA reporting. All employee contributions are 100% vesting and therefore should have been taken into account when. How do we go about correcting this? The regulations simply state the non-duplication rule does not apply and that the entire amount will be taken into account for FICA purposes when it is distributed. Also, it states that penalties and interest may apply. I read this to mean that we do nothing now with respect to the prior years and when it is actually paid out, include it for FICA purposes. Going forward, we will operate per the regulations.

Any thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks!

The (small company) 401k plan ceased contributions, distributions, etc. on 12/31/2003 so the company could start with Simple IRA in 2004. I was preparing to term the 401k, but in talking with plan sponsor we realized he really just wanted/needed a safe harbor provision. If the Simple IRA is confined to 2004 only, is there any reason why the 401k can't be brought back into operation for 2005? Any amendments needed? There are no plan loans or other complications, and there have been no distribution requests. We could come back and get the Simple IRA money after the 2 year wait.

How do we look?