Are you having catch up eligible participants make an election (enroll) for the opportunity to make catch up contributions? Or are you merely letting participants know that the plan allows for catch up contributions and under what circumstances they will become catch up contributions? We're unsure how to handle, especially the plan basis deferral % limit. Let's say the limit is 10%. Can a catch up eligible participant who makes $100,000 then elect a deferral of 11%? This would result in $10,000 in regular deferrals subject to the ADP test and $1,000 in catch up contributions outside of the ADP test. Or does the catch up eligible participant need to make a separate election beyond the 10% and elect a 1% (or $1,000) catch up contribution?

I am looking to see what other companies do above and beyond their basic benefits. Such as Flex Time and Education Reimbursement.

It seems to me that safe harbor contributions should be made on gross comp., but perhaps not. Can anyone give me a definitive answer?

Will a conversion to a Roth satisfy an RMD for the year of conversion? I'm sure this has been answered before and the answer is probably no. However, the logic is not clear to me. If the IRA owner is pulling funds out of an IRA and paying taxes while converting, that would seem to accomplish the IRS / Congressional goal of forcing the payment of taxes. It seems an administrative hassle to first take a small part of the IRA as a regular distribution before converting the whole thing. Am I wrong in my thinking?

A client just asked me whether the fee that a TPA charges a client to amend and restate a document for GUST can be paid from plan assets. He also asked the same question regarding the preparation of the EGTRRA good-faith amendment.

Can clients pay the TPA's fees from plan assets, assuming the plan document permits expenses to be paid from the trust?

(Assume the client is using a prototype, so IRS fees are not an issue.)

Most insurance carriers have different benefit levels to cover TMJ and some do not cover them at all. Is there any documentation that an FSA covers TMJ and devices associated with the problem, for example mouth guards?

I have a participant who had recently gotten divorced, due to a divorce being a change in status she increased her pledge amount. The participant just submitted claims for reimbursement. The effective date of change per her employer is November 9, 2001 she submitted claims for reimbursement dated prior to November 9, 2001 are these claims eligible for reimbursement since the effective date of change is after the dates of service?

We are trying to project a plan for a prospect and we have some questions regarding the safe harbor matching contribution in a cross tested plan. What we are trying to set up is the safe harbor match of 100% up to 3% of deferrals and the additional 50% on the next 2% of deferrals. I need some clarification on what the match will satisfy. I don't have to run and ADP/ACP test because of the match, but what about top heavy? Does the match apply towards top heavy? If so, do I need to deposit an additional contribution for those participants who elect not to defer? What about a cross tested plan using the gateways? Would any part of the match be used to satisfy the gateway allocation? If so, same as the top heavy question - do we have to deposit any additional contributions for the participant who did not defer, therefore not receiving the match? Can we use any of the match to satify any other tests that I have forgotten about? I understand that if you use the 3% non-elective contribution, it applies to top heavy and the gateway contributions - I am just unsure of the safe harbor matching contributions.

Any sites would be helpful!

Thanks for any help!

This question concerns the issue of whether it is a problem for an enrollment company that uses unlicensed workers to conduct 401(k) enrollemt meetings to hand out prospectuses and other investment related information. clearly, the DOL regs say that as long as you stick to certain things, the person is not "giving investment advice." However, is there any NASD rules that govern the distribution of prospectuses etc? I am inclined to think that as long as the enrollers stick within the parameters of the DOL regs, there wont be a problem.

I have a client who owns 3 companies. They are definitely a controlled group. Against my advice, the client insisted on setting up three separate 401(k) plans with three separate annuity contracts.

My problem is that some of the employees go back and forth between the companies so they end up with accounts in more than one of the contracts. The employer believes if an employee leaves Company A for Company B then that employee can take a distribution from her account at Company A because she is terminated. I'm really not sure that is the case. Another issue is loans. If a participant has a larger account balance in Company A's contract, but now works for Company C, can she take a loan from her account at Company A and have payroll deduction for the loan payments at Company C?

I'm afraid I am missing something very fundamental here. Thank you in advance for any guidance.

Even though Ann. 2001-77 sets forth times when employers may be able to rely on the opinion letter of the volume submitter practitioner and not request a determination letter in its own regard, it would seem that those times may be somewhat narrow in application. We maintain a number of volume submitter plans almost all of which have had another plan covering some/all of the same participants at some time prior. However, going forward it would seem that it may be prudent to request a determination letter even with a new employer/new plan. Any thoughts on this??

Can I set-up a Roth IRA in my name and use the money to pay for my childrens educations?

Also, can my wife do the same in her name?

Thanks,

BB

Consider an otherwise vanilla DB plan, safe-harbor. Upon the death of an active employee, the surviving spouse receives a benefit of the following:

- assume the participant had remained employed to NRD, at the same rate of pay as in effect at date of death (thus a "projected NRB"),

- spouse gets one-half of this amount, payable immediately,

- benefit ceases at the earlier of spouse's death or remarriage.

Plan also contains the following statement: "In no event will the death benefits received by the surviving spouse be less than the Actuarial Equivalent of the amount the surviving spouse would have received under the QPSA." [QPSA is defined according to common meaning of that term under the regs.]

I'm not sure the 417 statute or regs would anticipate that a surviving spouse annuity could cease on remarriage. A provision that reduced the amount to the QPSA seems passable, but total cessation does not. Anybody think the quoted sentence above is valid? Any other comments?

We are going into a bid cycle for our plans. Our concern is to get the most bang for the buck, especially in quality and services provided by dental providers to member employees. Because we are not self-funded but insured, the desire is to create performance standards for the contracting plans to be held accountable for in the quality of benefits provided under this type of plan and access to providers. The thought is what kinds of performance standards might be reasonable and useful with a DHMO and how effective the use fo financial penalties would be based on quality assessments made based on employee survey results (e.g., survey results obtained by the plan vs. those obtained by the administrator), or if it is even feasible to do so. As DHMOs tend to run on slimmer operating margins, financial penalties may or may not be a feasible alternative based on survey results from employees, as an example- so, looking for any advise, history or comments on this matter. Any comments or ideas would be appreciated.

We are going into a bid cycle for our plans. Our concern is to get the most bang for the buck, especially in quality and services provided by dental providers to member employees. Because we are not self-funded but insured, the desire is to create performance standards for the contracting plans to be held accountable for in the quality of benefits provided under this type of plan and access to providers. The thought is what kinds of performance standards might be reasonable and useful with a DHMO and how effective the use fo financial penalties would be based on quality assessments made based on employee survey results (e.g., survey results obtained by the plan vs. those obtained by the administrator), or if it is even feasible to do so. As DHMOs tend to run on slimmer operating margins, financial penalties may or may not be a feasible alternative based on survey results from employees, as an example- so, looking for any advise, history or comments on this matter. Any comments or ideas would be appreciated.

A doctor has left a medical group and started his own practice. He would like to set up a qualified plan and rollover his distribution into the new plan. He will be the only participant in the new plan. The main reason he wants to do this is to protect these assets from future lawsuits (I don't know why he thinks he will be sued, but this seems to be a concern).

However I think I recall that a one participant plan is not covered by a part of ERISA and that these assets would be subject to attachment if a lawsuit or something would happen. So, he may be better off leaving these assets in the old medical group's plan if a lawsuit is such a concern.

Is this true?

Thank you.

As a new member to this forum, I hope you are able to help me with this concern.

We have administered FSA plans for many years and have only JUST encountered the COBRA issue.

Our generic plan document does not address this, so ANY input, advice, suggestions, tips etc you have in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

JM

IRC 318 states: an individual is treated as owning any interest that is owned by the individual's spouse, children, grandchildren, or parents.

What is the rule for grandparents? Are grandparents considered to own an interest for this purpose and if not what is the rationale behind it?

My question relates to two members of a controlled group. Each is an incorporated entity that should each meet the QSLOB rules, except for perhaps the requirement for administrative scrutiny. Under the administrative scrutiny rules and the safe harbor relating to each of the SLOBs being in a different line of business, one entity is in Group 30 and the other is in Group 51 (relating to their SIC codes). In Revenue Procedure 91-46, where the IRS lists the different industry categories, Group 51 and Group 30 are NOT in the same category. However, Group 51 appears no where in the Rev Proc...so that concerns me. I am considering a request for an individual determination from the Commissioner that the separate line of business satisfies the requirement of administrative scrutiny but it is so expensive....anyone have something like this happen to them and how did you proceed?

We are going into a bid cycle for our plans. Our concern is to get the most bang for the buck, especially in quality and services provided by dental providers to member employees. Because we are not self-funded but insured, the desire is to create performance standards for the contracting plans to be held accountable for in the quality of benefits provided under this type of plan and access to providers. The thought is what kinds of performance standards might be reasonable and useful with a DHMO and how effective the use fo financial penalties would be based on quality assessments made based on employee survey results (e.g., survey results obtained by the plan vs. those obtained by the administrator), or if it is even feasible to do so. As DHMOs tend to run on slimmer operating margins, financial penalties may or may not be a feasible alternative based on survey results from employees, as an example- so, looking for any advise, history or comments on this matter. Any comments or ideas would be appreciated.