If the message boards keeps asking you to log in when you try to post a message, even though you've just put in your username and password, the problem could be in your computer's "cookies" -- the little text files that usually work behind the scenes to log you into the message boards automatically whenever you visit the message boards.

Here's the likely fix for such trouble:

1. Go to the front page of the message boards, which is http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php

2. At the bottom of the page (scroll a bit), click on "Delete cookies set by this board"

3. Now does your screen still say "Logged in as: <Your Username>" up top? If so, repeat step 2 until your screen says "Welcome, Guest!" up top.

4. At this point, quit your browser (including any open browser windows).

5. Fire up your browser again and go to the front page of the message boards.

6. Assuming the front page says "Welcome, Guest!" now click on Log In and enter your username and password in the appropriate boxes. Below them, you probably want to leave the "Remember Me?" radio button selected ("Yes"). Thereafter you won't have to enter your username and password; that particular computer will log you in automatically whenever you visit the message boards using that computer.

If you still have trouble with the software asking you to log in (after you've already logged in), please let me know (preferably as a reply message posted into this topic).

Thanks!

Can we put our birthday in the profile without the year?

With unemployment rising, I've had a few employees ask me about how friends/family members can get insurance if they are unemployed (COBRA to high, as other independent insurers).

Does anyone know of good, inexpensive insurance for people who are unemployed?

Thanks, Greta

What is the industry standard for proxy votes when a plan is in blackout due to transition reconciliation? The assets are held at a plan level until the reconciliation of the participant accounts is complete. If a proxy request is received during this period how would it be handled? Who would vote in the case of non-ERISA plans?

We are in the process of terminating a db plan that has always paid lump sums. The client is concerned that some participants may elect an annuity.

1) Does the annuity purchase have to preserve the lump sum as an option? If not, why not. Isn't it a "right and feature" of the benefit that must be preserved?

2) If the plan prohibits "in-service" distributions (other than those related to the plan's termination) does the annuity purchased also have to enforce this? In other words, assuming the answer to #1 is yes, if an active person declines the immediate lump sum, can they decide two years from now that they want it? Can they get a "retirement" annuity without actually retiring?

My understanding is that the annuity purchased must preserve all of the ERISA protected plan features and therefore the answer to question 1) is "yes". This would mean that the participant either elects a current lump sum, a current annuity or elects to defer their decision until a later date. This "later date" decision is what the annuity purchased must provide.

Anyone agree or disagree?

The last time I worked on a 5500 filing for a defined benefit plan, I recorded the contract value of the general unallocated account for a defined benefit plan as equal to the value of plan assets for Schedule A and financial information purposes(now Schedule H). There were no other assets in the plan.

I now see Schedule A information provided by insurance companies including a FAS110 market value adjustment and a year end "current value" reflecting the market value adjustment.

Question: For purposes of determining 5% reportable transactions, should the threshold be based on the beginning year market value adjusted balance in the general account ?(there are no other assets in the plan) and do I treat the FAS110 MV adjustment at the end of the year as a potential 5 % reportable transaction if it exceeds the 5% threshold?

Thanks in advance.

What is the criteria for who must disclose FASB 87 information?

The "View New Posts" on the Boards produces a different result from the "Active Message Threads" on Benefits Buzz.

Employee left employment on 1/1/2001. Was not aware of retirement eligibility. has now (in 2003) requested retirement with a retroactive effective date of 1/1/2001.

(1) The plan includes a minimum from a prior money purchase plan account balance. This balance (with fixed rate of interest) can be taken upon any severance of employment, without regard to $5000 limit, the balance of the accrued benefit to be paid as an annuity. The plan defines the annuity conversion of this account balance as based on the 417 conversion factor in effect at the annuity starting date. At 1/1/2001, that would be the GATT mortality table (Revenue Ruling 95-6) and 5.49%.

(2) Suppose a slightly different scenario: same as above, except there is no MP plan account balance, but the plan offers a lump sum option on the entire accrued benefit. Revenue Ruling 2001-62 refers to annuity starting dates on or after 12/31/2002. Since the participant has elected a 1/1/2001 annuity starting date, does Rev. Rul 2001-62 apply?

Is this interpretation correct? Any other comments?

A 401(k) Plan converts to a calendar year in 2002 with the short year being April 1 through December 31. Ownership of the corporation is 1.01% each for 99 owners. The limitation year is the plan year. In calculating the top-heavy status of the plan for the 2003 plan year, how do you determine whether of not these owners are Key or not. For a full year, about 2/3 of them would earn more than the $150,000; however, during the short year, only 38 earned more than the $150,000. Does the $150,00 get pro-rated for the 9 months to $112,500 to see which of these more than 1% owners are Key Employees? Do you use compensation for the full calendar year 2002, even though it overlaps into the prior limitation year?

We have been accessing a web page at www.moodys.com to get the Moody's Aa rate each month. Today we found that it is no longer available to nonsubscribers. Does anyone have a source where we can get this information for free? What other rates do people use to benchmark the discount rate for FAS 87?

A plan allows for participant loan and also provides for the maximum "cure period" as defined in the final loan regulations. The "cure period" ends on the last day of the quarter following the quarter during which the participant missed a loan repayment. In your opinion, does the regulations require that "interest" be charged on the missed loan repayments that are made prior to the end of the "cure period"? In my opinion, the regulations are not explicit in this regard. I believe that the regulations could be interpreted either way, and that either interpretation would be acceptable. As an additional observation, the regulations are explicit in the situation where the participant does not make the missed payment by the end of the "cure period" and the loan is labeled a "deemed distribution" The regulations explicitly state that the amount of the "deemed distribution" is the amount of the outstanding balance with interest applied until the end of the "cure period". I am interested in hearing how other companies are handling the situation.

I have a client that uses a Bank as the Trustee of his plan. As I understand it the client is not required to hve a fidleity bond. In completing the Sch I, should I check "No Bond"?

If there is a cross reference to the Schedule P which names the bank and is signed by the bank, I guess the DOL could tell that the "plan" was not required to be covered by a fidelity bond. That cross reference seems unlikely to me. And what does "covered" mean? I would guess that the plan is not named on the banks bonding policy.

or... would you say yes and try to obtain the amount of bonding that the bank has?

or just assume that the bank has $500,000 of bonding in place and enter that amount?

Just seems like an obvious reject for audit item if I say "no Bond".

Service provider accidentally comingled pre-safe harbor matching contributions and safe-harbor matching contributions and, as a result, permitted hardship withdrawals of safe harbor matching contributions for several NHCEs over a three-year period. Several of the affected participants have since terminated employment.

Our thoughts are to perform applicable nondiscrimination testing for the affected years, but service provider is charging an enormous amount to run the testing. :angry:

Thoughts on possible alternative corrections?

A plan sponsor does not want to adopt the $200,000 compensation limit enacted by EGTRRA within the EGTRRA good faith remedial amendment period, but may want to adopt the higher limit later. If the plan prospectively adopts the $200,000 limit after the EGTRRA remedial amendment period ends, will this violate 401(a)(4)? The change will only benefit the highly paid (it will only affect those with comp over $170,000).

Supposedly there is some guidance out there regarding the limit change and 401(a)(4), but I haven't been able to find it!

I'm looking for information regarding plans covering employees in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Does anyone know a good source to research this topic? I'm looking for testing, qualification, and administration rules. Thanks.

Is a participant entitled to retiree benefits under the following scenario:

The participant is a member of a multiemployer health and welfare fund. The participant initially became eligible for benefits in 1973, the employee worked off and on from 1973 to 1995. The employee's eligibility was terminated in 1995 when the employee left to start his own business. In 2000, the employee returned to the fund and became eligible for benefits after fullfilliing the initial eligibility requirements of the fund.

The plan states that if an employee's coverage is terminated and the employee did not make self payments or elect COBRA coverage, and the employee's coverage has been terminated for more than one year, the employee must meet the Plan's initial eligibility requirements before the employee's coverage will be reinstated.

Also, to be considered a Retiree under the plan, the employee must have performed at least ten thousand hours of covered employment since he initially became a covered employee.

As per the definition of retiree, did the participant become initially eligible for benefits in 1973 or in 2000? The answer to this question would be more clear cut if the word reinstated was not included in the above plan language.

Any opinions in regard to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

I think I've got an alienation problem. DRO was approved in 2000 by Plan Administrator but never actually communicated to record keeper. In 2001, Plan Part. terminated employment and moved out of state and in 2002 withdrew his entire account and ex-spouse never got a cent. I suspect that Plan Part. probably thought that account segregation had occurred since his account balance on distribution date was much less than it once was (due in reality to investment losses). What is the PA's liability? Probably not possible to get Plan Part to disgorge or repay (assuming he rolled it over into an IRA or other plan) his excess distribution and ex-spouse has come looking for her $$. Suggstions are to corrective actions or settlement terms with ex-spouse?

If a defined contribution participant has no U.S. source income, is the 415 limit for that participant zero? If that is the case, is there any way for a participant with no U.S. source income to ever have money in a U.S. qualified D.C. plan? If not, why is it even possible to include "nonresident aliens with no U.S. source income" in a plan - what would be the purpose of including this category?

I need some assistance from the community with the following scenario.

We had a DB participant pass on in January 2003 who was receiving a single life annuity. As part of a legacy benefit, this participant had employee contributions that they were receiving a non-taxable portion with each monthly annuity payment. The question is, now that the participant has passed on, what should be done with the remaining balance of their non-taxable base? For example, the participant has a remaining non-tax base balance of $2000 as of 1/31/2003 which they were receiving apportionments of $30 per month over the life of the annuity. Since there is a remaining balance of the non-forfeitable employee contributions, do we cut another check for the remainder of the employee contributions and pay to the beneficiary? Any other alternatives?

Thanks,

MikeH