Emoloyer sponsors a 401k plan. The plan provides match. It does not provide any other employer contribution. The plan covers all employees meeting the 21/1 requirements.

The employer wants to give more money to HCEs. Therefore, the employer wants set up a separate 401a plan, providing an employer contribution. The plan will only cover HCEs. He does not want to give the min. gateway to the NHCEs.

Is this doable? Under the minimum gateway rule, are all plans of the employer aggregated?

Even if there was not a min. gateway issue, I assume all plans are conbined for 401a4 testing?

Comments please.

Seller S sells its assets to buyer B1 in a 4204 transaction. In connection with the transaction, pursuant to ERISA Section 4204, S agrees to remain secondarily liable for a withdrawal by B1 during the 5 years following the closing of the transaction. On the first anniversary of the transaction, B1 sells its assets to B2 pursuant to a 4204 transaction. Pursuant to ERISA Section 4204, B1 agrees to remain secondarily liable for a withdrawal by B2 during the 5 years following the closing of the transaction.

Question: Does S remain "tertiarily" liable for a withdrawal by B2 during the four year period following the closing of the sale of B1s assets to B2? Any support for the answer?

PBGC Opinion letter 90-1 does not speak to this issue.

Thanks in advance.

Seller S sells its assets to buyer B1 in a 4204 transaction. In connection with the transaction, pursuant to ERISA Section 4204, S agrees to remain secondarily liable for a withdrawal by B1 during the 5 years following the closing of the transaction. On the first anniversary of the transaction, B1 sells its assets to B2 pursuant to a 4204 transaction. Pursuant to ERISA Section 4204, B1 agrees to remain secondarily liable for a withdrawal by B2 during the 5 years following the closing of the transaction.

Question: Does S remain "tertiarily" liable for a withdrawal by B2 during the four year period following the closing of the sale of B1s assets to B2? Any support for the answer?

PBGC Opinion letter 90-1 does not speak to this issue.

Thanks in advance.

Somone just told me that Dick Wickersham has retired. Is this true? If so, he will be missed at the various conferences and the IRS will surely miss his wealth of knowledge.

Can the plan sponsor of a 401(k) plan grant service credit to new employees for their service with their previous employer, on a new hire by new hire basis, even if the previous employers were not related to the employer sponsoring the plan, provided it is done in a manner that does not discriminate in favor of HCEs? If this cannot be done, please provide a cite showing that this cannot be done.

Thank you!

If a participant was coded as Key years ago only due to stock attribution (>5% owner attribution) and the ownership changed, is that key person (who was only key due to attribution) now a Former Key for top heavy testing.

thanks

I wanted to get everyone's opinion on something (even though it isn't likely to come up very often) to see how important it might be to them. I was doing some research on who is eligible to receive a top heavy minimum contribution and how Relius handles it as it compares to the FDP and Corbel plan documents, the regulations, etc. According to what I have read, there are 2 interpretations. The prevailing view is that the minimum contribution must go to everyone who is a not a key employee for the year that contains the determination date (the last day of the prior plan year). The opposing view (and more logical in my opinion) is that it goes to all non-keys in the year in which it is to be allocated. According to the ERISA Outline Book, either appears to be fine pending additional guidance. Relius takes the opposing view point not the prevailing. However, both the FDP and Corbel plan document clearly state that it goes to non-keys for the year that contains the Determination Date (the prevailing view). This was confirmed with one of corbel reps. And the language they use is word for word from the IRS' prototype language so it is probably the same way in most documents.

Does anyone see this as a major problem for them? It would most likely occur when someone buys into a business and becomes an owner. In the first plan year that they were an owner, Relius would not give them a top heavy, but the plan document would call for one (which doesn't seem logical to me, but seems to be the way the IRS is leaning).

Hopefully I explained it well enough.

I would really appreciate your thoughts on it.

Tim

I have had a request from a couple of administrators here about the possibility of doing a crystal report that would list the inservice distributions for each participant and the year they pertain to. While it might be an ugly report to actually do, I'm thinking that it might be possible. Before I go plunging into it, I thought I would see if anyone else had tried anything similar.

Tim

I remember that there is a special rule that where an employer has more than one plan it must use the same method for determining HCEs for each plan. I am driving myself nuts trying to find this in the regs. Can ayone point me in the right direction? Thanks!

Does the spouse need to be 100% primary in order to roll into an IRA of their own? I have a spouse who is 50% and son is 50% primary beneficiaries and the spouse wants to roll her 50% into an IRA of her own.

OK...I am very new to this field so please bear with me. I am a Benefits Administrator for a 501©(3) organization. I am having a hard time with the Internal Revenue Code and the 403(b). Here is my issue...

IRS Publication 571, Tax Sheltered Annuity Plans, states that "Maximum Allowable Contribution (MAC): For Tax years beginning after 2001, the maximum exclusion allowance (MEA) has been repealed, therefore your MAC is the lesser of the limit on annual additions or the limit on elective deferrals." I read this to mean that you are no longer limited to a percentage of your salary for a 403(b) and are limited to the lesser of the limit on elective deferrals (currently 12K) or annual additions (40K). I am being told that your 403(b) plan must adopt those changes. This is what does not make sense to me. If the Internal Revenue Code repealed the rule, how can a company limit the contribution to a lesser amount, say for instance 5K ( citing the MEA for example). Wouldn't that company now be in violation of the rules for a 403(b) and therefore, this would not qualify as a 403(b). Please note, we are following the IRC, but I am trying to make sure conceptually that I understand the law. Thanks!

During the course of an audit, it was discovered that the elective contributions were not made for some employees. Specifically, these contributions were not made for employees that terminated employment at the end of the year and received a check for unused vacation. The amounts were withheld from the paycheck, just not deposited. Other than the prohibited transaction tax and filing the Form 5330, is there anything else that must be done? I.e. is this something that we would need to submit to VCP?

We have a client who wants to change their vesting schedule so it applies to each yearly deposit individually. We won't do this and are pretty sure there is a reg that speaks to this but are unsure. Does anyone have any info.

In a floor/offset arrangement, the DB plan's minimum funding requirements are affected by the performance of the PSP. Generally, if the PSP's returns are poor, then the cost to the DB plan will increase to make up the shortfall.

May an ER make an additional PSP contribution to cover the PSP's shortfall instead of tapping the DB plan to cover the difference?

The answer would seem obvious, granted a discretionary PS contribution, but I would still appreciate some guidance with this matter.

If actuarial equivalence assumptions in the plan document are amended, what is the proper way to grandfather the lump-sum benefit? Here are two approaches (assume 12/31/02 as the amendment adoption/effective date):

1) Absolute dollar: Future lump sum cannot be less than the PVAB as of 12/31/02 of the 12/31/02 AB under the old A.E. assumptions.

2) With interest: Future lump sum as of any future date cannot be less than PVAB of the 12/31/02 AB under the old A.E. assumptions.

I always thought #2 was the correct approach, but it never hurts to revisit.

Now, I have a takeover plan where the plan A.E. is defined (prior to GUST restatement) to be 8% pre and GAM83 50/50 as of the Dec preceding the distribution year. 417e assumptions were the usual PBGC interest rates. (I believe this was someone's attempt at early GATT compliance.) Lets ignore 417e for this discussion. Would future lump-sums be grandfathered using the Dec 2001 GATT interest rate for all future calcs, or, would lump sums be grandfathered using whatever Dec interest rate preceded a future year of distribution?

After reviewing the various discussions regarding lost and missing participants on these boards (thanks to whoever did the links) I could't find anything regarding locator services for International participants. We have terminated plans (due to bankruptcy) and are trying to locate missing participants. The IRS and Social Security programs are great for US based employees but not for those whose last known address was a foreign country. Has anyone had success with an International locator service? Thanks.

Company X maintains a 401(k) plan for its employees. Participant A works for Company X and participates in its 401(k) plan. In March, 2003, A's contributions to the X 401(k) plan are suspended for 6 months following his/her hardship withdrawal of elective deferrals. If A terminates employment in May, 2003 and is then reemployed in November, 2003, is A subject to the remaining 4 months of the 6-month suspension period upon reemployment?

Are Simple IRAs able to be rolled over into 401k plans?

Our document says that the Plan is eligible to accept rollovers from "qualified plans" and that the rollover must meet the applicable requirements of Code sec. 402, 403 or 408.

Any help is appreciated!

Just came across a “standardized” adoption agreement, which allows the option of applying the accrual fraction before or after applying S415 to the projected. But it states that if the latter method (applying accrual fraction after applying S415 to projected) is selected then the plan will be discriminatory under section 401(a)(4)!!?

a) Is this true? If so, where does it say in the Code, Regs, IRS opinion letters…?

b) I thought, in a “standardized” adoption agreement, all options were de facto non-discriminatory (as long as they were not inconsistent with other selected options)?

I have been trying to research info on Roth IRAs and investing our money more wisely, but am confused by much of it. My questions on rolling a traditional IRA to a Roth are as follows:

I have $2K in a traditional IRA and want to roll in a Roth - once I roll it over, does that $2K count toward the maximum annual amount that I can put in?

If I roll the traditional into a roth, will I be taxed on the $2K?

If after the 5 year period I want to take out money, will I only pay 10% penalty, or will I be subject to other fees/tax? (i'm younger than 59.5)

What does the 'required beginning date' mean?

Are we able to take out money (in the future of course) to pay for a child's college education without penalty or tax? We've been reading about the 529 plan and don't know if it is a good idea to start one or choose other forms of investing.

I've been reading the information about roth iras on www.rothira.com and lots of the wording is confusing, which is why i have so many questions. Thank you very much for any info you have on the above.

-Sarah