Does anyone have any experience with or thoughts about coordinating a VEBA and a 401(h) account in a pension plan with respect to funding retiree welfare benefits?

Does anyone have any experience with or thoughts about coordinating a VEBA and a 401(h) account in a pension plan with respect to funding retiree welfare benefits?

I have a Profit Sharing plan that has had annuities as an form of payment and therefore required the QPSA and QJSA notices, etc. I've been reviewing the new adoption agreement (that was completed by the document sponsor) for the GUST restatement. They still have annuities selected as an option for payment, but they are telling the client that the plan is exempt from the QPSA and QJSA requirements. They're saying that "annuity" can mean single life (which requires no spousal signature) and that as long as the spouse (in the case where there is one) is the beneficiary, the notices are no longer required. This is how they eliminated the J&S from their plans.

I've had several plans eliminate J&S from the plan during the restatement process, but they also eliminated all forms of annuities at the same time. I've also done some research that seems to indicate that if you have annuities (any form) in the plan, you still have to give the QPSA and QJSA notices.

Can you have annuities in the plan without being subject to the QPSA and QJSA requirements?

A controlled group of 3 companies wishes to establish a separate allocation group for the employees of each company so they may make varying levels of profit sharing allocations to each based upon the varying levels of profitability for each company. The plan also has a 401(k) feature benefitting employees of all companies.

If the employer decides that one company (or allocation group) will get 0% in a given year (and assuming the plan passes all other coverage and non-discrimination tests) are the participants in that allocation group still subject to the minimum gateway requirement (thus causing an unintentional contribution), or not since those employees would not be "benefitting" in that year under the 401(a) component of the plan.

Plan is NOT top heavy.

Any help appreciated.

This seems to set an awful precedent for any disabled person who can no longer feed himself or herself -- any such person arguably has become dependent on "artificial life support" and is a candidate for a guardianship-assisted "right to die":

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20031015b.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/national/15FEED.html

Can a participant who has previously defaulted on a participant loan be denied a new loan? Based upon past experience, the participant would not seem to be credit wothy. At the least, the new loan does not seem to be a good investment.

The account is a non-ERISA 403(b)(7). The participant is deceased, and there is a outstanding loan balance.

For qualified plans, we require instructions from the plan administrator confirming the outstanding loan balance, and whether it is an offset of deemed-distribution. But there is no plan administrator for the 403(b)(7) ---. How do we determine the outstanding balance and the status of the loan? Who do we get confirmation from?

Thanks in advance

Jane

A lump sum death benefit from a DB Plan is payable to the participant's designated beneficiary per the plan document. One participant has named a corporation and another has named a revokable living trust. Since this is not an annuity, I see no 401(a)(9) issues but are there other problems that I am not seeing?

deleted

I understand a record number of PEOs went bankrupt in 2002 requiring employers to pay payroll taxes, workers comp when funds had already been paid to PEO however liability was still the employers', doubling their expenses. One of my clients wants to use a PEO based in Bradenton, FL - client in CA wondering if DOI stance is positive etc to outsourcing workers comp. They don't require any retainer for workers comp etc.due to the "power of many". Any experience with PEOs? Team America, one of the largest recently went bankrupt. Is the magic about smoke and mirrors? Do they cover expenses with new sales? How can they make money handling all including business and employer liability legal fees, COBRA, HIPAA, health, 401(k).HR, employee manuals, new hire processing, complete HR outsourcing including covering all HR related lawsuits etc for only 20% admin fee? Any comments, info, trend info or feedback would be helpful. We may want to use one as well since we have about 38 employees, same as our client. It seems too good to be true! Hidden fees? Appreciate your experience with PEOs you can email me directly as well. Thanks again.

Obviously it would not be an exhaustive listing but rather than sit here and think up a zillion "ok" items and a few "not ok" items... I was wondering if there's already one compiled out there...

Thanks

the gateway regulations say that the Plan Administrator must allocate the gateway contribution without regard to allocation conditions. i am wondering when the contribution is actually classified as a gateway contribution. lets say for example the employer decides it wants to give HCE's 15% and NHCE's 5%. this of course satisfies the gateway regulations but if it satisifes 401(a)(4) on its own would any of the contribution to the NHCE's have to be allocated in accordance with the gateway regulations?

PLEASE HELP I AM DESPERATE!!!!

I have a situation here where a union member covered by the health plan divorced his wife. She is currently receiving COBRA coverage for a period of 36 months due to the qualifying event of the divorce. The couple's 3 children remained covered under the husband/member.

The husband has just passed away. The children are now entitled to COBRA as well. The mother is currently covered as an individual.

Is there any law, rule or regulation which would prohibit the Fund from or allow the Fund to switch to family coverage for the mother and the three children or must they all be covered as individuals. The individual coverage premiums combined are significantly more than the rates for family coverage.

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you.

We have a client who is putting in a medical expense reimbursement plan. It is being put in place to reimburse up to $1,000 annually expenses participants incur that aren't covered by their health insurance. It is employer paid.

We are drafting the document today.

Because this is not an FSA or cafeteria type arrangement, can we backdate the effective date to January?

If you know the answer, can you point me to a citation?

Thanks.

Plan terminates under standard termination on 1/15/03.

All benefits are distributed by 10/15/03. Plan is not fully funded, but substantial owner elects to receive a lesser allocation of assets to enable all other benefits to be paid.

Prior years method is EAN and valuation date is 12/31.

Rev. Proc. 2000-40 Sec. 6.01(5) indicates that terminated plans can only rely on the Rev. Proc. for automatic changes described in Sec. 4.02.

Sec. 4.02 permits a valuation date change to the first day of plan year if assets are greater than present value of benefits as of the date of termination.

Question:

Is automatic approval available for a change to first day of year (1/1) in this situation? It seems it would not be since assets are less than pvab as of termination date, however does this change considering the treatment of substantial owner's benefit under standard termination?

or

Is a valuation date 12/31 permitted after the complete distribution of benefits (i.e. 0 assets, 0 liabilities, etc.)?

I have a participant that just purchased a new residence. Unfortunately, the contract on their current residence fell through. They are currently moving into the new residence, but have not been able to sell their current residence. Would this participant qualify for a hardship withdrawal, based on these facts and circumstances? My initial thought is no because 1) no foreclosure notice has been served on the "old" residence and 2) they will not be living in the "old" residence when and if the notice is served. I am interested in anyone else's thoughts/ideas!

Plan X is a 401(k) plan allowing up to two loans to be outstanding at any time. P has two loans outstanding. P wants to pay off one of his loans and take a new loan. Following plan procedures, he requests a payoff amount and then sends a check to payoff the loan. P then requests a new loan. After the proceeds of the new loan are paid to him, P's check that paid off one of the previously outstanding loans bounced. Short of immediately taxing P on the new loan amount, are there any suggestions on how to correct this?

Until 1999, X maintained defined benefit plan M that permitted voluntary employee contributions. In 2001, X is taken over by Y. Effective January 1, 2004, Y wants to merge plan M into its defined benefit plan N, but not include the voluntary contribution portion of plan M. Can the voluntary contribution portion be spun off to a separate plan in connection with the plan merger? Can the voluntary contribution portion be spun off to Y's defined contribution plan O prior to the merger? What are the regulatory filing, notice requirements of such a spinoff? Are there any requirements that need to be taken into account if the voluntary contribution portion is spun off into Plan O (other than separately accounting for such portion)? Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, would be greatly appreciated.

Can someone provide me with the exact Regulatory cite that says when an ADP failure is corrected by refunded excess deferrals that the match attributable to those deferrals is also forfeited? What if there is immediate vesting for matching contributions, do the Regs. trump this nonforfeitability and allow them to be forfeited?

All help is appreciated.

HELP! Client is a controlled group and does not file a consolidated return. One company is a management company and employs the two owners (the owners' W-2 compensation is paid by management company). Other company is the "productive" company employing all other employees (about 100 employees). The productive company has been making the contribution to the cross tested profit sharing plan and taking the deduction for the contribution. Obviously $80,000 of that contribution is deducted on the productive company's return, but the corresponding $400,000 of compensation is not on that return. Therefore, an agent could possibly look at the return and decide that the contribution is greater than the 25% of compensation deduction permitted because there would be no notice of the controlled group on the 1120S. Something about this does not seem right to me. It seems as if the IRS would have a problem with the productive corp (who has greater income) taking the full deduction on its return. However, I can not find any authority one way or the other (I want something to back up my conclusion when I decide to make an issue of this). Does anyone have any idea if this method of contributing to a plan and taking a full deduction is ok or wrong? Thanks.