Can a SERP plan invest in a tax qualified fund w/o disqualifying the fund,

my inclination is no since it is not a qualified plan but would like second,third opinions please

thanks

Clark Bardes Consulting-CRG's 2002 Executive Benefit Survey was just released. You can down load it free from our site, www.clarkbardes.com/ebp. You'll find it under knowledge center.

Can a defined benefit life term pension be rolled over to a 401k when the a person is 55 years old?

We have just learned that the Republican Conference decided not to bring the tax package before the House of Representatives. According to Ways and Means Committee staff, the tax package that was under consideration will not be introduced in bill form. At present there are no plans to bring this legislation to the House floor before Congress adjourns, but the situation remains fluid.

Obviously this is new ground since the legislation was just passed in june. But, comments would be welcome.

I have a client that give employees, as part of their retirment package 50% of the value of their accumulated sick days in cash. The question is could this cash be rolled into an HRA account to escape the taxation as long as the funds would be used for those items designated in HRA.

If you are retired and are taking monthly withdrawals from an IRA can you change that IRA to a Roth IRA?

I currently have a 401k and a Roth IRA in my name. My wife is unemployed and, if she does start working again, it will only be for about 3 or 4 years. She currenlty has a 401k (only about $4000), but we are considering rolling it over into an IRA. Are we limited to opening up a Roth IRA in her name or can we open up a traditional IRA in her name?

Thank you

I have a takeover plan with loans. The reports from the prior admin show all loans as 100% vested. Relius applies vesting to loans. The client wants loans to continue to be reflected as they have been (100% vesting).

Anyone know how I can override vesting for loans to show them as 100% vested? :confused:

Thanks!

I have two “C” corporations each with identical ownership. All shares of each corporation are owned by 3 entities. The 3 entities each own one-third of each corporation. The 3 entities are trusts in the name of the owners. For example, a stock certificate would be held in the name of “John Doe, Trustee for the John Doe Trust.”

Corporation A has only one employee. Corporation B has 4000 employees. The trustees of Corporation A would like to get a fully insured health care policy available only to the 3 trustees.

Corporation B has a self-funded health plan offered to all employees. The trustees (owners) of Corporation A would like to lease back their single employee thru Corporation B. (Much like a PEO relationship where Corporation A would retain control over the employee, and Corporation B would be the employee of record, run payroll, administer benefits, provide work comp etc.) Employee from Company A would then be eligible for benefits as an employee of Company B. Employee would be an employee of both Corporation A and Corporation B.

Question: are there any ERISA issues with the 3 trustees of Company A maintaining a separate, fully insured health care policy for themselves only, while the single employee (as well as all future employees of Company A) would be eligible only for the self-funded health plan of company B and would never be offered the fully insured policy in which the 3 trustees participate?

I have a plan who added a related employer last year operationally but never formally amended their adoption agreement to reflect this. This employer will be added as part of their restatement for GUST but what corrective action, if any would need to be for this?

If anybody knows of any resource to definitively confirm this, I'd really appreciate it - Is there a mandated definition of "regular wages" used to ensure Hawaii employees do not pay more than 1.5% of coverage? Specifically, if the employer pays 75% of the cost of coverage, can the employer add the employer portion of the premium to the employee's gross wages before multiplying by 1.5% to determine max charge to employee?

Participant terminates employment with Employer A. Has balance in Employer A 401(k) Plan. Also has outstanding loan balance in Employer A Plan.

She wants to rollover all assets to Employer B's plan, but Employer A will not accept loan payoff. Employer A has already issued a letter that the loan balance will be deemed, and that Participant will receive a 1099-R for that amount.

Question, does the 60-day rule apply to this deemed distribution amount? Can she make up the outstanding principal amount with money out-of-pocket and pay it to Employer B's plan...and avoid any tax consequences???

We have a client who has an individually designed plan and has not updated their plan yet. We talked to them last year and were supposed to do the update for them, but they informed us that someone else was doing it. The client called yesterday and thought we had done the amendment. What do we do now? Clients on our prototype document were to be amended by August 2002.

What are the "rules" about original signatures on beneficiary forms? In other words, we are thinking about converting our paper files to electronic format (because we're running out of filing space) and we were wondering if a copy of a signed beneficiary form would suffice in the event of death. Any thoughts?

If you haven't already seen this article - check it out. I don't know where this guy got his information but...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...-364364,00.html

Besides one blatantly wrong bit of info*, it is extremely negative and conveniently leaves out other info such as Risk-Shifting etc.

*

(I emailed him regarding the "cosmetic surgery" aspect - couldn't restrain myself... LOL!)

Employee has coverage under spouse plan. Spouse plan has open enrollment effective January but employee's employer has it 7/1.

Employee wants to drop coverage under her spouse plan effective January 1 and come on to her employer's plan.

Is this allowed?

Company is 501-3© and they currently sponsor a 403(B) for their employees. They just acquired a division that is asking if they (the division) can start their own 401(k). First can this company sponsor a 401(k) and 403(B)? And if yes, won't it have to be open to all employees of the company not just that one division?

I think I'm pretty clear on how to reduce the pool of possible beneficiaries after the participant's death and prior to the September 30 deadline, what I'm not clear on, is how to determine the pool in the first place.

Example: A participant has died and has named his spouse as primary beneficiary and their children as contingent beneficiaries. Are the children in the pool or not? If the spouse completes a proper disclaimer, will the children or the estate then be the beneficiary?

What if the Grandchildren are named as remaindermen beneficiaries?

Let's say the participant married again to a much younger spouse, who is actually younger than the children of the participant. In the above scenario, if no one disclaims or is paid out prior to September 30, will the age of the spouse be used since he/she is primary beneficiary or will the ages of the children be used since they are older? Same question pre-death for determination of the participant's minimum distribution?

Thanks so much!

Carolyn

Hi -- We have an employee who has unwittingly elected COBRA for himself *and* spouse due to job loss. The spouse was entitled to Medicare prior to the COBRA election, under age 65 due to disability. We are unsure as to the correct order of benefits.

NAIC rulings do not appear to be specific enough in this area, more than likely because people who become entitled to Medicare typically want to drop COBRA as opposed to what these individuals have elected.

Any direction as to determination sources?

Thanks in advance!

The topic of the day is: improper exclusion of leased employees.

I have a client who recently discovered a *minor* compliance issue with its 401(k) plan. In a nutshell, it had a fairly sizable group of union employees who were magically transformed into leased employees a couple of years ago. Because union employees were always excluded from the plan, they continued to be excluded after they became leased employees, natch. Unfortunately, no one remembered to check the plan doc to see if leased employees were actually excluded. Not that it would've mattered anyway: the plan would've flunked 410(B) unless most of these folks were allowed to participate. The employees at issue are all pretty much similarly-situated, so there does not appear to be a good way to include only part of the group based on their job functions (or otherwise, really).

I know that there are standard fixes for this sort of thing. I am hoping that someone out there in TV land has tried something more creative (and less expensive) than the standard fixes. Client is not averse to using VCP rather than SCP, provided we can come up with a proposed correction that is cheaper than the Service is likely to require.

Anyone have any brilliant ideas or are we stuck with QNECs?