May an employee receive more than one unforeseeable emergency distribution?

Is a 401(k) plan required to allow participants to revoke their deferral elections at any time?

We have a self funded medical plan. A newly hired employee failed to enroll within the 31 day initial eligibility period. Due to her circumstances, we are inclined to grant an exception, and allow her to enroll.

Does her effective date need to be her original eligibility date (since eligibility dates are defined in the plan) - in this case, 2/1/02. Or can we make her effective date an alternate date (let's say 6/1/02)? My initial thought is that we have to make it 2/1/02, since the only other effective dates allowed under the plan are due to status change or open enrollment.

Your input appreciated.

Just looking for some general advice on this. Plan sponsor of a profit sharing and a 401(k) is in bankruptcy, and wants to terminate plans. Usually we're not involved at this point, because they haven't paid their fees and we've terminated the service contract.

Plan Trustee still around and available, and willing to "do their duty." So we don't have to deal with some of the typical problems.

However, are you aware of any particular things we need to watch out for in this situation? Also, we want to make sure we get paid! Do you think the client would be safe if they rely on DOL Opinion Letter 97-03A to allow payment of our fees from plan assets? We just don't want to get dragged into something that isn't clean, and the whole settlor function fee issue has been thorny for a long time.

Appreciate the benefit of anybody's experience or knowledge. Thanks.

I know that the Education Savings Account borrows most if its rules form the traditional IRA- and I think this includes the rules that trade commissions must be deducted from the account and cannot be reimbursed. However, I am unable to find a cite for this to verify the accuracy ( or lack thereof)… any help is appreciated

Does anyone know how contribution receiveables, that will be paid within the prescribed 8 and 1/2 month period, are treated under the new bonding requirements? Are they considered qualified plan assets or are they subject to bonding to avoid the new small plan audit requirement?

While virtually all of 401(a) does not apply to plans of state & local governmental employers due to TRA '97, what is the status of the requirement that benefits be definitely determinable? This is imposed under Regs 1.401-1(B)(i) and appears to still be applicable to governmental plans (ref Carol Calhoun's article on DROP plans). All of the old rev rulings on in-service distributions and distributions made to participants when transferred to different job locations (thus becoming ineligible to participate) do not qualify under 401(a) rely on this provision in the regs (60-281, 60-323, 74-254, etc.) Does this impose a limitation on governmental employers to treat employees going from full-time to part-time as terminated, and allowing distribution of benefits?

I received a call today asking if an employees 401(k) account could be garnished for child support or back child support? Any insight would be great. Thanks!

Would appreciate input regarding regulations on "record keeping" for cafeteria plans...specifically, how long do records need to be kept for: SPDs, Enrollment Forms, Claims, etc.

We are getting ready to move some files to an off-site location and anything we can toss would be great.

I found one site that said claims can be discarded after three years...?

If you can point me to IRS regs on this, it would be great.

Am also trying to research my State regs on this as I understand that they would supercede the Federal regs...

Thanks in advance for any and all responses.

I have a situation. Here are the facts:

(A) owns 80% of company 1 and (B) owns 20% of company 1

(A) owns 51% of company 2 and © owns 49% of company 2.

By code, this is a control group because of the 80%/50% rule.

However, another TPA is arguing with me that this is not a control group because there is a rule that states that if an owner owns 0% of a company (like B & C do), they are not included, making this situation not a control group. I disagree and can find no such guidance for his position.

Any ideas? If so, citing from code/regs would be great. Thanks.

I have a client who is an owner of a C corp. His corporation is part of several C corps that are within a controlled group. The controlled group of corporations is the 80% owner of a partnership. Thus, the corporations and partnership form a parent-subsidiary relationship.

My client, the owner of one of the C corps, wants to participate in a medical and a disability plan of the partnership. Is this permissible?

HI ALL. OUR FIRM CONDUCTS IN HOUSE SEMINARS FOR OUR STAFF IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS. IN OUR CONSTANT EFFORTS TO KEEP CPE SEMINARS INTERESTING AND TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION, WE ARE TRYING TO SET UP A GAME FORMAT. WE ARE TRYING TO USE FAMILY FEUD FORMAT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS THAT I HOPE ALL OF YOU WILL RESPOND.

HERE IS A QUESTION:

NAME A CHANGE TO THE 2001 FORM 5500?

PLEASE ANSWER THE FIRST THING THAT COMES TO MIND. IT IS GOING TO BE LIKE FAMILY FEUD WITH THE ANSWERS (50 ACCOUNTANTS SURVEYED, TOP 5 ANSWERS ON THE BOARD).

THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT.

Does anyone know of a way to reimburse an employee working in a state that assesses state income tax without it being grossed up for federal income tax purposes?

The employee has a home location in a non-income tax state and spends some time working in a state that assesses income tax. Would like to reimburse for the "added expense" of working out of state without increasing his taxable income.

Thanks!:confused:

We are a small company with a self funded health plan. Management would like to change some of the employee contributions for eligble spouse participation. For a spouse who works part time, the employee contribution would be less. For a spouse that has full time employment the contribution would be higher. Are there any tiered plans set up this way? Is this a legal option? Any feedbacck will be appreciated.

Plan Year ended 3/31/02. Safe Harbor Match is standard amount (100% of 3%, 50% of 3-5%) based upon payroll period wages. Total SH Match to HCE for plan year exceeded allowable maximum of $6,800 based on $170,000 maximum payroll for plan year. How should this be corrected?

Say if you are living with your domestic partner (male/female relationship Texas) and he was laid off. We recvd the info and papers on Cobra and filled them out, submitted payment and then they called and said they made a mistake and there is no Cobra benefits to the domestic partner. Notification came around the 50th day.I called Dept of Labor Dallas and they said that last week there was a a descion made for this exact problem, stating the domestic partner can not elect benefits for herself but he(ex-employee) can elect them for me. "No independent right to elect coverage but a dependent right".Does anyone know anything about this?Also, any rule to notifying us of the no Cobra when all forms that were filled out and they stated "subscriber plus one"?

FYI there was domestic partner benefits before lay off. Any help would be greatly appreciated!!

Is it proper to start reporting IRA distributions paid out after age 59 1/2 as code 7 (rather than code 2), even if they are part of a series of Substantially Equal Periodic Payments, which have been received for less than 5 years?

I have had only limited bkgrnd with ESPPs and recently had posed to me the question of whether or not Sec. 423 ESPP's are governed by ERISA. Having some familiarity with Microsoft, I recall that it was determined in that case that the ESPP was NOT governed by ERISA. However, I am wondering by what authority that was decided. The specific issue that came up was whether or not the ESPP in question is required to have a trust established in conjunction with the Plan. Any pointers in the right direction would be most helpful. (since ERISA is NOT my specialty!)

Can you take money out of your Roth Ira w/o paying penalties if you are using it to buy your first home?

Does a participant have any chance at holding plan liable where benefit statements have reflected 100% vesting even though participant's vesting % is less? Vesting is 5 yr/ 20% year. Participant was employed only 2 years, but after termination of employment annual statements showed 100% vested. Participant requested distribution and got about 40% of the $$ shown on the benefit statements. Any recent cases? Will "detrimental reliance" be the issue? Participant basically only received less than what the statements led him to believe he had. Fund manager has said it was an error and they're sorry for the confusion.????