Hello,

My employer allows up to 11 vacation days to be carried over from one year to the next year, but they must be taken by 3/31 of the following year.

Due to a new project assignment beginning early 10/03 and then subsequent illness and current STD, I will probably be unable to take the 11 vacation days that I accrued in 2003 before the mandated 3/31/04.

HR has told me that I will loose the days if I do not RTW in time to take all the days before 3/31/04 and that I cannot be paid for the days: there are no exceptions

Is there anything that I can do?

Thanks...........blb

I have an employer that does not want to file an extension on the company tax return. They would like to make the 2003 contribution after that date. They understand that they would not get the deduction for that year. Is it possible to do this and still allocate it to the 2003 plan year? Can you take the deduction for the 2004 tax year?

Our health care plan has an inpatient hospitalizaiton copay of $500. The inpatient hospitalization began in November 2003. Patient was released in January 2004.

Employee was not enrolled in flex spending account for 2003, and signed up for $650 for 2004. He has sent in a claim for reimbursement of the copay from the flex spending account for 2004.

Is this expense eligible for 2004 reimbursement and can you provide why?

We are contemplating merging several old inactive DC plans into a single plan for administrative convenience. Other than the example given in the instructions for Form 5310-A of a money purchase plan with an oustanding minimum funding waiver, is there any other situation where a 5310-A would be required? The assets will be combined to form the assets of the merged plan, and each participant will have the same account balance after ther merger as before.

Our client sponsors a qualified plan. A participant in the plan is going through a divorce. The divorce court, through the divorce decree, has ordered the plan to pay the ex-spouse 100% of the participant's vested account balance. The divorce decree goes on to provide that the ex-spouse must then pay 50% of the distribution to the participant. The participant is not yet 59-1/2 and is still actively employed. First, does the plan have to worry that the DOL or IRS will raise any objections to the QDRO? Second, is this a tool by which the participant can get at some of his (in this case) retirement plan assets while avoiding the early distribution penalty tax? The divorce decree also provides that the participant, once he receives 50% of the distribution initially made to the ex-spouse, will then be responsible for reimbursing the ex-spouse for his "share" of the income taxes applicable to the distribution.

Thanks so much for your help and comments.

Is there such a thing as a "loan rollover"? OR is it really a "loan transfer"? Is one "term" better than the other?

Why would a plan allow a loan rollover/transfer other than in instances of plan merger or transfer?

There is a deceased participant in a retirement plan that has named trusts (each trust for a specific individual) as her beneficiaries. How is the distribution handled and taxed?

Utilizing Rev. Ruling 77-2 and recognizing the impact of the window in the next valuation is a clean approach ; but if you wanted to reflect the window in the current year and if the window opens after the beginning of the year and closes before the end of the year and if you have a choice to perform the valuation either before the window opens or after it closes then I was wondering how practitioners are handling it ? i.e. are there any compelling reason(s) why doing the val. pre-window with appropriate assumptions is preferred over waiting until you know the outcome of the window ? or vice-versa ??

There have been discussions in the past on this and I was just wondering what the current thinking is ?

assuming notice is given timely, when is the latest time the employer has to actually adopt the safe harbor plan amendment? in this case the plan is an existing 401(k).

If an employer withholds money for months from an employees paycheck for a SIMPLE IRA, but does not fund the account until months later, what are the requirements? Is the employer responsible for earnings growth which would have occurred in the account?

The employer is considering refunding the money withheld, to the employee, because they do not have the money to cover the required 3% employer contribution. Other than refiling last years W-2's, what problems do you see with that approach?

This particular participant left the trade in the late 70s and now seeks to take his disability pension. Is the participant held to the standard of the plan that existed in the late 70s or the standard under the present plan with regard to whether or not he qualifies for the disability pension?

Thank you in advance for your help.

I did not search.....sorry.

I have a small company, 4 employees 2 of which are my wife and I. S-Corporation.

I want to contribute as much as possible to a retirement vehicle.

Do I qualify for 401k and if so, how do I go about it?

Should I just do an IRA for each of us or what would be best?

Thanks in advance

Can a plan document still be written to offer a bottom up QNEC? And if so, is there any guidence as to how it is done since EGTRRA? Would you just start with the person with the lowest compensation and give them a contribution so the total of all of their contributions is 100% of salary and work your way up?

I received an attorney-drafted newsletter that stated that the individual limitation for fiscal year plans ENDING in 2004 is $41,000 (not counting the catch-up). (example for a plan ending 2/29/04

Normally this limitation would be used for plans BEGINNING in 2004.

Does anyone have any more info?

The same amendment make changes that impacts future benefit accruals in opposite directions: (1) One part of the amendment changes the def'n of compensation (in a non-discriminatory manner) to exclude certain components of compensation previously included (a reduction) and (2) another part of the same amendment increases the benefit formula. Both changes are contained in the same amendment and have the same effective date. When viewed in its "totality" the net impact of the "entire" amendment on each participant is either an increase in future accruals or a negligible decrease, although one component of the amendment viewed by itself (comp change) is clearly a reduction. Is the 204(h) notice based upon the amendment's overall impact or based on each individual component of the amendment ? Also what guidance do we have as to what constitutes a "significant" reduction in future benefits ? (I recognize to be safe we may want just do a 204(h) notice as there may be some minor reductions in a few participants' future accruals).

Two entities with ownership as follows:

Entity 1: Dad owns 100%

Entity 2: Dad owns 40% and Son owns 60%

Would Son be deemed to have 100% ownership in Entity 1 and Dad deemed to have 100% ownership in Entity 2 due to attribution? Thank you.

A LLC establised a SEP in 2002. The LLC file their taxes as a partnership and all "wages" are earned income (K-1). Now for the questions. First, the 2 members, who are the only employees, set up individual SEP's using their individual information not under the LLC's name/tax number etc.. Does this make the contributions made in 2002 disqualified? The SEP should also have uniform contribution amounts as a percentage of compensation, but the 2 members contributed different amounts As both are HCE and key , does this cause any discrimination issues or any other problems I should be aware of? Thanks in advance for any input!!

Employer A with a DB plan sold subsidiary to Employer B in a stock sale. Employer B assumed A's plans with respect to employees of the subsiduiary that became employees of B.

B's DB plan allows for early retirement at 55 with a 25% reduction if vested.

A's plan evidently required employees to be employed on the day they reached 55 in order to qualify for early retirement with a 25% reduction. Otherwise normal retirement age is 65.

Employee worked 10 years with A and 14 years with B. At age of 54 years and 4 months, B eliminated his job, and terminated his employment.

At age 55 employee applies for early retirement from B. He is told that the A portion will be reduced by 65% from the age 65 amount because he was not employed on the date he reached 55. He is told there is no discretion with ERISA on this matter.

I hope I have provided suffiecient but not too many details.

I would appreciate comments.

I'd like to know what sort of impact has been made within your retirement system and otherwise by allowing retirees to return to work and receive their benefits.

We have a client with a 401(k) plan who contributes 12% in the form of a profit sharing contribution. Upon conducting the 2003 ADP test, the plan fails and one corrective measure would be to contribute a 5% QNEC on behalf of the NHCE only.

Can we reclassify part of the 12% profit sharing contribution as a QNEC on behalf of the NHCEs without violating Sec 401(a)(4) with regards to discriminating in favor of HCEs?