Yes, I know that today is Christmas, but I still have end of year deadlines. My question concerns the requirements for a safe harbor nonelective contribution. There are several threads on this subject, but I am still confused.

Employer wants to have a safe harbor 401(k) with a 3% non-elective contribution. Employer wants a 1,000 hour requirement with a last day of year requirement for receiving the 3% non-elective safe harbor contribution. My undertanding from 2000-3 is that is allowable, (the result was different is 98-52) but what about the participants who made deferrals during the year and quit before the end of the year or have less than 1,000 hours. Do their deferrals have to be tested under ADP??

I could be reading 2000-3 incorrectly. Any help is appreciated.

Thanks.

I have long taken the view that the triggering events enumerated in sections 403(B)(7)(A)ii and 403(b)11 have NO application to rollover treatment but rather list the earliest date upon which a participant may make a TAXABLE distribution. Apparently I am not alone. In fact, I am in very sound company! Following is an exact quote from "Tax Focus/September 16, 1992". This is a publication of "Standard Federal Tax Reports" published and researched by "CCH" the topical law publishers. Here is the quotation:

..."NEW ROLLOVER RULES:

By eliminating the key requirements that currently exist as a condition for rollover treatment, Congress has taken significant steps to make it easier for individuals to keep their retirement assets in a retirement vehicle. Specifically, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments (UCA) of 1992 eliminated the distinctions between total and partial distributions, the mandatory triggering events, and the one-year distribution requirement for total distributions.

After December 31, 1992, any portion or all of a distribution from a qualified plan or tax sheltered annuity plan (other than a minimum distribution, generally required to begin after age 70.5,) can be rolled over tax-free to another qualified plan, tax sheltered annuity, or IRA with only the following conditions:

(1) it must be rolled over in 60 days, and

(2) it cannot be one of a series of substantially equal periodic payments (not less frequently than annually) made (i) over the life or joint life expectancies of the participant and his beneficiary or (ii) over a specified period of ten years or more.

In short, with the exception of required distributions, nonannuity distributions generally may be rolled over, regardless of the amount or reason for the distribution."

COMMENTARY:

The eliminated mandatory triggering events referred to in the first paragraph can be found under section 403(B)8 prior to January 1, 1993. CCH recognized, along with other practitioners, that effective January 1, 1993 these mandatory triggering events for rollover purposes was repealed. Thus, it is wrong to apply the triggering events under 403(B)(7)(A)ii and 403(b)11 to eligibility for rollover treatment.

Peace,

Joel L. Frank

POST YOUR 403B QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS...

Go to Top | New Topic | Go to Topic | Search

Subject: 403(B) rollover rules (not a 90-24 transfer)

Author: Joel L. Frank

Date: 12/24/2001 5:35 pm PST

I have long taken the view that the triggering events enumerated in sections 403(B)(7)(A)ii and 403(b)11 have NO application to rollover treatment but rather list the earliest date upon which a participant may make a TAXABLE distribution. Apparently I am not alone. In fact, I am in very sound company! Following is an exact quote from "Tax Focus/September 16, 1992". This is a publication of "Standard Federal Tax Reports" published and researched by "CCH" the topical law publishers. Here is the quotation:

..."NEW ROLLOVER RULES:

By eliminating the key requirements that currently exist as a condition for rollover treatment, Congress has taken significant steps to make it easier for individuals to keep their retirement assets in a retirement vehicle. Specifically, the Unemployment Compensation Amendments (UCA) of 1992 eliminated the distinctions between total and partial distributions, the mandatory triggering events, and the one-year distribution requirement for total distributions.

After December 31, 1992, any portion or all of a distribution from a qualified plan or tax sheltered annuity plan (other than a minimum distribution, generally required to begin after age 70.5,) can be rolled over tax-free to another qualified plan, tax sheltered annuity, or IRA with only the following conditions:

(1) it must be rolled over in 60 days, and

(2) it cannot be one of a series of substantially equal periodic payments (not less frequently than annually) made (i) over the life or joint life expectancies of the participant and his beneficiary or (ii) over a specified period of ten years or more.

In short, with the exception of required distributions, nonannuity distributions generally may be rolled over, regardless of the amount or reason for the distribution."

COMMENTARY:

The eliminated mandatory triggering events referred to in the first paragraph can be found under section 403(B)8 prior to January 1, 1993. CCH recognized, along with other practitioners, that effective January 1, 1993 these mandatory triggering events for rollover purposes was repealed. Thus, it is wrong to apply the triggering events under 403(B)(7)(A)ii and 403(b)11 to eligibility for rollover treatment.

Peace,

Joel L. Frank

Reply To This Message Previous Message | Next Message

Topics Author Date

403(B) rollover rules (not a Rev. Ruling 90-24 transfer)

Joel L. Frank 12/24/2001 5:35 pm PST

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Reply To This Message

Your Name:

Your Email:

Subject:

Email replies to this thread, to the address above.

Can anyone clarify the difference btw prudent man and prudent expert rule as they apply to ERISA fiduciaries.

Are there ERISA or other code provisions or adsvisory opinions that deal w/ this at all?

thanks for all responses!

happy and healthy holidays to all

I've decided to convert my traditional IRA to a Roth. Can I deposit a new $2000 as well? (I meet the income rules). Thanks!

Hey, im 17 and a senior at my high school. I want to get started in investing. Any information you all might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

I am currently trying to locate an organization that offers detailed training on 457(B) Plans. Does anyone know of any in the Southern California area?

:confused: I have a COBRA question. Here is the situation. An employer has received notice that his HMO plan is going out of business. So the employer cannot and is not going to renew with wth current HMO, obviously. He is going to move to a new HMO on the plan renewal date. Prior to changing plans and under his current HMO he offers part time employees working less than 30 hours per week HMO coverage. At renewal he is going to change the eligibility for enrollment into the the new HMO to 32 hour a week. Therefore, all part time employees who were previously eligilble are no longer eligible for coverage. None of the part time employees has seen a reduction or increase in their hours. None of the part time employees has terminated employment. They are pretty much staying status quo after the plan change at renewal. Now, here is my question. The only thing that has changed are the hours needed for eligibility. Does the raising of hours for eligibility which makes coverage not possible to part time employees at the renewal create a qualifying event? In other words, since there is no reduction or increase in part time employee hours and none of them have terminated after the new HMO is put into place does this create a qualifying event for them under COBRA? Both the former HMO and the new HMO say it does not cause a qualifying event. I tend to agree. What do you think?

Thanks, Ashley Nevins

Calendar year employer is swiiching his 401(k) from 6-30 to 12-31. using a short plan year 7-1-01 to 12-31-01. He will be near 15% for short year and 6-30-01 year. He makes near $170,000. In calculating what he can deduct for 2001 can I use his $170,000 for 6-30-01 PYE + $85,000 for 12-31-01 PYE?

For plan year beginning 01/01/2002 seperate testing will be used for 401(B) and 401(a)(4) for those not meeting a YOS.

The disaggregated group is comprised of only NHCEs and therefore passes 410(B) and 401(a)(4). The non-disaggregated group consists of only HCEs and therefore passes.

Is the disaggregated group subject to the Gateway? Is the Gateway applied before or after disaggregation?

The employer would like to give the NHCEs only 3% TH minimum for the 2002 plan year.

Can an employer repeal 415(e) for a MPP plan frozen in 1995 (employer has DB plan in its past).

Repeal would be for purposes of GUST amendment for terminating MPP plan.

A participant of one of our client's plans recently got married in Peru by proxy. The participant is trying to bring his "wife" to the US, although they are not sure if this will ever happen. The plan sponsor is wondering if he needs to assign his "wife" as his primary beneficiary. He currently has his two children from a previous marriage listed as beneficiaries. Does anybody have any ideas on this?

One of my co-workers attended Corbel's advanced penson conference in Chicago last month and asked one of the presenters "Who is responsible for maintaining a plan document after a client leaves?" (i.e., we no longer do the record- keeping). She may have misinterprepted the answer, but here it is anyway. If a client leaves and has tpa X do the recordkeeping, we are responsible for maintaining the plan doc (assuming they don't adopt another sponsor's doc)!! He went on to add that this responbibility goes on for several years (3 or 5, I forget which).

Now here's how I think this works, someone please give me a sanity check.

- Once a client leaves, he's on his own re: the document. BTW, I have been telling departing clients this in writing.

- If a plan terminates, we would make sure the doc has been amended for recent law changes, i.g., GUST, and that's it.

Thanks fellow soldiers in the great ERISA war.

Maverick

I recently took over an underfunded plan that is in the process of terminating. The plan is slightly underfunded based on the lump sums based on the accrued benefit payable at NRD.

The problem is that the plan also contains an unreduced early retirement benefit payble at 55, which the previous actuary was ignoring. This provision makes the plan to be significantly underfunded, if each participant elects it.

My thinking is that each participant will be given the right to take a lump sum (based on annuity at 65) or an annuity commencing at AA or 55 if later, equal to 100% of their accrued benefit. This annuity would be purchased from an insurance company. The current plan provisions do not allow in-service distributions so in order for the participant to collect the annuity, they must terminate employement.

The owner understands that if anyone takes the annuity, he will most likely get very little from the plan.

If the plan is amended to allow in-service distributions prior to termination, is there any problem in letting the participant collect the benefit at early retirement age and continue to work?

My feeling is that if they have to buy the annuities, the insurance company is going to charge them for the full subsidy anyway. If the Plan is forced to buy it, why not let the participant get it?

Any thoughts?

I have a client who sponsors a Simple 401(k) plan for his employees and provides the 3% match, but the only two employees who participate are the owners. If the Plan is subject to 410(B), then wouldn't he have to use the 2% nonelective contribution?

Is the Roth split and does it remain a Roth for them?

Thank you

I am a financial Advisor in S. California and a TPA I use for Administration and the movement of money may be going out of business. Does some Govt Agency come in and support the operations staff to transfer the monies and data transfer once the company can no longer meet payroll. The TPA is also the custodian of all the assets and obviously the legal owner. I have several large cases and simply do not have the time to move them in time to avoid the posibility. Has anyone gone through this or heard of this situation and what happens.

Thanks

A plan requires ee contributions. At termination they allow for lump sums.

It would appear that the lump sum would have to be at least as much as the present value of the benefit. Whether the plan bases it on the immediate or deferred benefit.

Can a plan actually compute the lump sum to be the accumulated contributions plus the present value of the Er derived benefit, even if less than method stated above?

I don't know that it would make sense that way.

Anyone know of any cites to support thisone way or the other?

Say a plan is amended as of 1/1/87. It is clear that all benefits accrued up to that time must be protected, thus cannot be reduced. It is also clear that the assumptions and methodology for computing a lump sum must bemaintained for the accd benefit. i.e. if the lump sum were based on 1/1 pbgc rates and an immediate annuity, I presume this must be preserved, but you could use say 1/199 pbgc rates if for eg. ee recd dist in 1999.

Question is can the Plan actually preserve the specific interest rate as of the date of amendment .i.e. the 1/1/87 rate in this case? In other words can they require that this rate be used, so then if the person terminates in 1999 and the rates go down, the lower rate is not required as opposed to using the lower current rate?

Can someone age 75 make a contribution to an IRA account or do contributions cease at age 70 1/2 (min Dist).

Thanks