Employer arranges to have health professionals on site to give flu shots to employees. Employer pays the full cost of the shots and does not report the value of the shots in the income of those employees who elect to get stabbed.

Has anyone addressed the issue of whether such an arrangement qualifies as a de minimis fringe benefit?

I wanted to know if a U.S. citizen living in Japan is eligible to contribute in a

401(k). He is living in Japan with no intentions of ever coming back to the United States. He meets all the eligibility requirements needed to get into the 401(k).

Would it matter if he were paid in U.S. dollars or Yens? Does this even matter?

Please help!

Employer has a medical expense reimbursement plan. The written document appears to be outdated in that it references the 1954 Code. One provision of the plan allows for the Corporation to directly pay the medical provider. Since it is a medical expense "reimbursement" plan, is direct payment permissible? Thanks for any help.

In Spring of 2002 a distibution ( aobut $11,500) was made. This emmployer had a seperate company account using the same 3 mutual funds as the 401(k). He made the distribution from the company account. The accounts have different EIN's and I'm concerned that moving the money from the 401(k) to the employer account would be a prohibited transaction.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

A professor stood before her Philosophy 101 class and had some items in front of her. When the class began, wordlessly, she picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls.

She then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was.

So the professor then picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. She shook the jar lightly. The pebbles, of course, rolled into the open areas between the golf balls.

She then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed it was.

The professor picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of course, the sand filled up everything else.

She then asked once more if the jar was full. The students responded with a

unanimous --yes.

The professor then produced two cans of liquid chocolate from under the table and proceeded to pour the contents into the jar effectively filling the empty space between the sand. The students laughed.

"Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the important things - - your family, your spouse, your health, your children, your friends, your favorite passions - - things that if everything else was lost and only they remained, your life would still be full."

"The pebbles are the other things like your job, your house, your car."

"The sand is everything else - - the small stuff."

"If you put sand in the jar first," she continued, "there is no room for the pebbles or the golf balls.

The same goes for your life. If you spend all your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the things that are important to you.

Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play with your children and grandchildren.

Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out dancing. Take riding lessons. There will always be time to go to work, clean the house, give a dinner party and fix the disposal."

"Take care of the golf balls first - - the things that really mater.

Set your priorities. The rest is just sand."

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the chocolate represented.

The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show you that no mater how full your life may seem, there's always room for chocolate!"

A couple divorced in 1/03. Pursuant to the property settlement agreement a QDRO was to be prepared. The wife was to receive 1/2 of the husband's pension. The husband died in 9/03 and a QDRO was never prepared. The husband never changed his beneficiary card with the pension plan before his death and after his divorce which would entitle the wife as beneficiary to get the entire pension.

1. Does the wife now get the entire pension?

2. Can the QDRO be prepared and entered after the husband's death?

There is also a minimal life insurance policy which was not referred to in the property settlement agreement. The only mention of life insurance was a statement saying that the husband had to maintain at least 250K in life insurance with his 3 kids as equal beneficiaries. The plan at issue here is 5K.

3. Does the wife get the 5K also or does it still go to the children?

Thanks in advance.

Dr. N and Dr. M sold off a major part of their practice effective June 30, 2003. They are continuing to run a smaller office with only themselves and one employee. All the other employees either terminated employment or are now working for Dr. K, who purchased the practice. Dr. N and Dr. M's corporation sponsored a 401(k) plan, which is now partially terminated as a result of the sale. This plan still exists, and the doctors now want to make an employer discretionary match (allowed by plan) for only themselves and their one remaining employee. I told them they can't, since excluding the other participants who are now with the new Dr. would cause the plan to fail ACP, 401(b), etc. I know it's shocking, but they didn't like my answer. Now they want to know if they can set up a new plan, effective July 1, 2003 (short plan year), and cover only themselves and their one current employee. I can't wrap my brain around this. Wouldn't they have to aggregate both plans for testing purposes? Old plan has a testing year of Jan thru Dec, 2003, new plan would have a short testing year of July thru Dec. Don't the old employees get thrown into the testing pool for the new plan, for 2003? Am I totally off base?

An RIA who works with our firm just passed me some marketing material from a local actuary that illustrates db/cb floor-offset plans with > 90% of the contribution attributable to the owners. The offset is provided by the prospective client's already existing 401k plan. The floor-offset arrangement is not a safe harbor. The material targets plan sponsors with 20-500 employees.

One illustration shows a firm with 2 owners and 18 employees. Over $20000 goes for the owners and < $400 goes for the employees. The 401k/ps piece is in addition. Has anyone seen this stuff, or gotten similar results with your own clients? I know that the general test can do wonderful things, but this seems too good to be true. Or is it just lucky demographics?

I wanted to see if there were any messages regarding money purchase pension plans having to make minimum funding requirements ..... so I entered MPPP MINIMUM FUNDING REQUIREMENTS .... and all I got was a bunch of garbage .

What am I oing wrong ?

An employer has failed to change deferral elections as requested for eligible participant. In order to correct this I believe the plan sponsor will need to do the following:

1. For participants that chose to increase their % the ER should contribute a QNEC in the amount of the difference plus earnings for those affected.

2. For participants taht chose to decrease their %, the option I would recommend is to forfeit the applicable deferrals and earnings and make the employee whole outside the plan.

In calculating earnings, I am assuming the Annual Fed Rate can be used.

Have I missed anything or incorrect in my thinking?

Are you planning on matching employee contributions this year? If yes, what industry are you in? How much of a match?

The ERISA laws cover many types of qualified retirement plans and many types

of welfare benefit plans.

So, which of those plans must have their assets in a trust ?

Can anyone site the DOL or ERISA reg which pertains to the "trust requirements" ?

Hi, I posted this on 403bwise message boards, and someone suggested I post it here as well...

Hi, I work for a financial planner who started his own company last year. I was not with him prior to that when he worked at a large securities firm. It has come to my attention that he rolled a TSA into a traditional IRA in 2001 for one of our current clients. The problems are these:

*she was ineligible for a rollover (no seperation from service, did not change employers, not 59 1/2, no disability, and obiously, no death).

*Her employer continued to make pre-tax contributions to this new account until we had them stopped earlier this year, once I realized what happened.

*it is not very easy to bring this up to my boss.

What I need to know is-what exactly are the tax consequences for this client?

If I approach a mutual fund company now to establish a new 403b, would they possibly reverse the old transfer?

She turns 59 1/2 in February 2004, and will still be working. Can her pre-tax contributions be made then directly to an IRA?

Any help would be greatly appreciated. We are supposed to have the client in next week, and I have no idea what to tell her.

Thank you!

Can a Cafetria Plan Summary Plan Description which offers a cash option, specify that the cash option can be used only as described in a negotiated agreement.

The intention of the negotiated agreement would be that if a member has health insurance somewhere other than with the employer then that employee can receive the $ that would normally have been used for the health insurance as a 403b annuity.

I have a Profit Sharing Plan that was terminated and all benefits distributed several years ago. Recently, we received a small (~$5,000) settlement from a class action lawsuit relating to one of the funds that the plan held prior to termination.

I'm unsure what I should do with these funds. I did a quick look around, but didn't find any guidance on the issue. Has anyone else dealt with this type of situation?

Thanks.

We have three companies that make up a controlled group. One of the companies in the controlled group has shut down. The company has fully vested those employees and provided them with distribution paperwork. Some of the terminated employees, whose account balances are over $5,000, want to leave their money in the plan. Since there is a reamining plan for the two companies, I do not think this would be a problem (other than the preference of the employer is to get these people out of the plan). I do not think the employer can force the "shut down" employees out of the plan, because there is a remaining plan. Is this correct thinking? Thank you.

There has been considerable discussion about the need to adopt a good faith EGTRRA amendment prior to the end of the 2002 plan year in order to adopt the changes relating to the compensation limit, the top heavy rules, and the 415 limits. I have a plan (recently arrived in the office) which contains the required direct rollover rules and which defines "eligible retirement plan" in the pre-EGTRRA manner - does not include 403(b) and 457 plans in the definition. A good faith amendment was not adopted prior to the end of the 2002 year. Notice 2001-42 says that the good faith amendment must be adopted in 2002 "if the plan language, prior to the amendment, is not consistent either with the provisions of EGTRRA or with the operation of the plan in a manner consistent with EGTRRA." In this particular plan, I am not concerned about the other EGTRRA provisions mentioned above; I can live with the old rules. Can I retroactively amend this plan to change the definition of eligible retirement plan?

I work for a utility in the midwest and we offer some professional (exempt) employees part-time positions (fridays off, compressed workweeks, etc.) I'm benchmarking how companies handle holiday pay for these type employees. If a person is scheduled M-Th for 32 hours, and a holiday falls on Friday, do they get paid? Do they get an additional day off? Do I just pay them an extra 6.4 hours? If they were scheduled 20 hours per week M-F, I'd just pay 4 hours for the holiday. Problem is these folks are truly exempt and often work many over over their schedule. Any input on how you handle this? Looking for equity and compliance issues. Thanks. pat

I'm reviewing a plan for a client who is taking over the administration for the plan. Granted, I think that I'm missing a few documents (an annuity funded plan with more paperwork than the Pentagon), but it appears that the employer (a governmental entity) has a money purchase pension plan and a 403(b) deferral-only plan. I'm assuming it was set up like this because the employer is a government (no 401(k) allowed). What I don't get is the contribution scheme . . .

The MPP appears to provide that the employer will only contribute to the MPP if an employee contributes to the 403(b) plan. I'm going to quote the SPD

"For each Plan Year in which you authorize . . . a salary reduction contribution . . . under the Tax Deferred Annuity Plan equal to 3% of your compensation up to 33 1/3% of the SS TWB and 6% of your comp'n in excess of 33 1/3% of the SSTWB, your employer will make a contribution to the MPP . . . equal to 4% of your comp'n up to 33 1/3% of the SSTWB and 8% of your comp'n in excess of 33 1/3% of the SS TWB."

I am ignoring the fact that the annuity contract says that a minimum of $300 must be contributed for each participant annually.

My question is WHAT?? Seriously, why would you want to set it up this way? Am I missing something or would one plan (a 403(b)) that provides matching contributions be MUCH easier? Not sure that you could transfer this formula per se, but this seems rather complicated for not a lot of benefit to anyone?

Any thoughts??

I'm reviewing a plan for a client who is taking over the administration for the plan. Granted, I think that I'm missing a few documents (an annuity funded plan with more paperwork than the Pentagon), but it appears that the employer (a governmental entity) has a money purchase pension plan and a 403(b) deferral-only plan. I'm assuming it was set up like this because the employer is a government (no 401(k) allowed). What I don't get is the contribution scheme . . .

The MPP appears to provide that the employer will only contribute to the MPP if an employee contributes to the 403(b) plan. I'm going to quote the SPD

"For each Plan Year in which you authorize . . . a salary reduction contribution . . . under the Tax Deferred Annuity Plan equal to 3% of your compensation up to 33 1/3% of the SS TWB and 6% of your comp'n in excess of 33 1/3% of the SSTWB, your employer will make a contribution to the MPP . . . equal to 4% of your comp'n up to 33 1/3% of the SSTWB and 8% of your comp'n in excess of 33 1/3% of the SS TWB."

I am ignoring the fact that the annuity contract says that a minimum of $300 must be contributed for each participant annually.

My question is WHAT?? Seriously, why would you want to set it up this way? Am I missing something or would one plan (a 403(b)) that provides matching contributions be MUCH easier? Not sure that you could transfer this formula per se, but this seems rather complicated for not a lot of benefit to anyone?

Any thoughts??