What, if anything, is the duty of the administrators of a Money Purchase Pension Fund with respect to locating any outstanding child support orders prior to paying out a member's pension funds?

Does the Fund have to look beyond a spousal election form (ie: a divorce decree) in order to determine an ex-spouse's rights to the member's pension?

If there is no QDRO served on the Fund, is the Fund required to look for/into other divorce/child support related documents?

We have a client that shut its doors in October of last year. We are in the process of filing a Form 5310. For Line 7a purposes is hte proposed date of plan termination the date the doors shut? Or can we set a date as the plan termination date? Additionally, for the IRS submission, we need a copy of all actions taken to terminate the plan. Do we need to draft resolutions to formally terminate the plan as of the date we set? I am just not certain how to handle this. Any directions would be appreciated.

I plan on taking the C-2(DB) in November. Out of the required readings I am hoping I can get by with only the Study Guide. I've got the ERISA Outline Book and I'll probably look at old exams. Is this sufficient for the average candidate?

Thanks for any guidance.

Hi. I am a novice when it comes to multiple employer plans. A question came up on the use of forfeitures. I did some research and came to a conclusion that there is no black and white guidance here. Specifcally, within a mulitiple employer plan there are a number of employers that offer similar benefits but maintain different vesting schedules. The issue is whether or not forfeitures derived from non-vested balances of one employer within the plan are used to reduce contributions required by that employer or have the forfeiture used by all employers within the plan. I think the ambiguity here is around the concept that plan assets (which are held by all employers in the plan) are used to pay for the benefits of any of the participants. I was looking at Reg. 1.414(l)-1(b)(1) and it doesn't seem to require that forfeitures be allocated among all participants of the plan, but only that all assets of the plan may be used to pay the benefits due any participant. Does anyone feel that the definition of benefits is extended to the use of forfeitures, or only for the use of paying benefits?

Thanks for your assistance.

Have a MPPP which was frozen back in 2001. Given the upswing in the market, the trustees are considering terminating the plan as of June 30, 2003. The plan document (vol. submitter) was recently updated for GUST. Due to language changes the document will need to be submitted to the IRS for review. Anyway to combine the GUST review with the termination, ie, wouldn't it be possible to submit the 5310 and include the new document and receive a det. ltr. on both the termination and the new document? Alternatively, any issues with terminating the plan as of June 30, 2003, paying out participants as soon thereafter as possible and then submit the document for review, ie, forego the 5310, but terminate as soon as possible?

Have a MPPP which was frozen back in 2001. Given the upswing in the market, the trustees are considering terminating the plan as of June 30, 2003. The plan document (vol. submitter) was recently updated for GUST. Due to language changes the document will need to be submitted to the IRS for review. Anyway to combine the GUST review with the termination, ie, wouldn't it be possible to submit the 5310 and include the new document and receive a det. ltr. on both the termination and the new document? Alternatively, any issues with terminating the plan as of June 30, 2003, paying out participants as soon thereafter as possible and then submit the document for review, ie, forego the 5310, but terminate as soon as possible?

Not sure if this is the right folder for this question, but here goes:

Company with 5 employees (4 family HCE's, 1 non-HCE's) with a 6/30 fiscal year. The adopt a SEP with an initial PYE of 6/30/02. They are considering adopting a PS plan, effective either for PYE 6/30/03 or 6/30/04, and doing away with the SEP.

If they adopt the PS plan, is the $500 (max) tax credit available to them for either 6/30/03 or 6/30/04 plan year, possibly both? Does the SEP interfere with them taking advantage of this credit? If they wait until 7/1/03 to adopt the PS plan (630/04 PYE), can they take advantage of any of this tax credit for SEP admin costs (if there are any) for 6/30/03 Plan year?

Thanks for any help.

A married person is a member of PERS dies and names his girlfriend as beneficiary. He is not divorced! is the wife treated as a surviving spouse, is entitled to widows benefits? Is girlfriend still treated as beneficiary? Any case history?

Recently one of our clients were bought out by another company. The 401(k) PS plan for the original client is still in existence with about 40 participants with balances even though the company is not. There are no contributions going into the plan nor were there for 2002.

Therefore, there was not testing run on the plan for 2002.

How do I continue to complete Schedule T. Can I mark one of the exception boxes. If so, which?

Thanks

Employer has a 401(k) safe-harbor plan.

Three kinds of contributions go into the plan.

1) Elective deferrals (withheld from employees' paychecks).

2) Required 3% employer match (required for safe-harbor status).

3) 11% employer discretionary contribution to profit sharing plan.

I realize that 1) & 2) are immediately 100% vested. But what about 3) ?

So, my question is .... Does a discretionary contribution to a profit sharing plan have to be 100% immediate vested, just because the profit sharing plan happens to have a "safe-harbor 401(k) feature" ?

I have been asked whether a wheelchair ramp (installation) is a covered expense for a medical FSA. I haven't found anything one way or the other, any opinions?

Thanks!

Carolynn

One of the two methods for a late correction of the ADP test is the one-to- one correction method. This method involves the Employer making a contribution to the Plan equal to the amount distributed to the HCEs. This contribution is then allocated to the NHCEs. In the ERISA Outline Book, there are four ways to allocated this contribution, and all four methods refer to allocating the contribution to participants who were NHCEs for that year. The ADP Test used the Otherwise Excludable Employee rule. Should the one-to-one contribution be allocated only to those NHCEs who were in the ADP Test, or should it be also be allocated to the NHCEs who were excludable from the test?

Can a participant in a 401(k) plan take advantage of the catch-up contributions in both the 401(k) plan and an IRA?

I think it might be useful for some of the authors to post about how the new tax laws, especially as relate to capital gains and dividends, might change investment/retirement basics. {I have only started to think about this and will post the first reply! with some of my ideas}

Do the new ERISA "medical claims deadlines" that the DOL requires a plan's insurance company to follow ... have to be described in the Summary Plan Description ?

It seems that the SPD wording might have to be quite lengthy to fully explain the new regulations.

Medical insurance companies must now process medical claims faster than before. The fact that there is now a separate set of DOL rules for each of three types of claims (urgent health care, pre-certification health care, and post-service health care) will make the SPD more difficult to write.

Can anyone direct me to a SPD on the internet that has this new disclosure ?

Thanks

I have a new (2002) calendar year 401(k) plan. The plan inception date was 10/01/2002. The client has a 3 month eligibility, but they let everyone in who was an employee on or before 10/01/2002. I'm preparing the 2002 5500 form. The plan has 123 participants as of 10/01/2002. There were 26 participants with account balances on 12/31/2002 with a total plan balance of $2,798.36. (The plan got started late with the deferrals and only had 3 or 4 weeks of deposits.) I know I'm grasping at straws here...is there any way to avoid having to do Schedule H and the client needing an independent financial audit for the 2002 plan year? Since the plan was effective 10/01/2002, I'm pretty sure I can't get around having the BOY 123 participant count & filing a Schedule H with audit...any input is appreciated...

An employee (this is in California) will be out on workers' comp. leave for 12 weeks.

Q1: Does his beneficiaries have COBRA rights? What rights do they have?

Q2: What are the employer's responsibilities to the beneficiaries in this case?

Since this is a subject about which I know nothing, thought I'd solicit some opinions. Suppose you have a multiple employer plan. Under 1.413©-2, each employer is treated as having a separate plan for purposes of nondiscrimination testing. Now suppose company "y" fails.

If there is a disqualification, how does this work? Is the entire multiple employer plan disqualified? Doesn't seem reasonable... but what are the mechanics of leaving disqualified money in plan, or getting it out if there's a disqualification, etc.?

I'm not looking for specific cites - just some opinions from folks who may be more familiar with these issues! Thanks.

Situation:

- Corporation has 3 divisions (SC, IL, and GA), each of which has a 401(k) plan.

- Corporation establishes a new "USA" 401(k) plan in 2002

- Assets of each division plan are merged into new plan at different dates during 2002

Can I use use 3% NHCE ADP for testing the USA plan in 2002?

The PPD ERISA outlines says "For the first plan year of a plan (other than a successor plan) that used the prior year testing method, the ADDP of the NHCEs for the prior year is deemed to equal 3%" I'm not sure of the definition for "successor plan".

I have a student edition of Sal's ERISA outline, but the C-1 version omits sections on ADP testing.

If 3% can't be used how in the heck do I come up with an ADP for the NHCEs? I remember reading something a long time ago that the NHCE ADP would not be the average of the actual prior year ADP for the 3 plans, it would be a weighted average. For example:

SC plan 2001 NHCE ADP: 4%, 100 NHCE (100/450 * .04 = .0088)

GA plan 2001 NHCE ADP: 2%, 300 NHCE (300/450 * .02 = .0133)

IL plan 2001 NHCE ADP: 6%, 50 NHCE (50/450 * .06 = .0066)

weighted average: (.0088 + .0133 + .0066) = .0287, 2.87% compared to

average of actual prior year ADP (.04 + .02 +.06)/3 = .04, 4%

Any ideas? Thanks.

Our paralegal has been telling all alternate payees that the participant's account balance is confidential and that the plan administrator is not allowed to disclose any amounts without a subpoena directed it to do so. She says that this is federal law.

What is she talking about? Can anyone point me in the right direction?