I have a question about compensation for the purpose of satisfying the safe harbor rules for matching contributions.

Currently, the plan does not include overtime as a component for determining participant deferrals. The plan will be converting to a SH plan through the matching method in the near future and the SH match will be based on a definition of compensation that includes overtime. Will the plan fail to meet the SH rules if the definition of compensation for deferral purposes does not include overtime (even though overtime will be considered for determining the SH match)?

What is the deadline for self employed plan participants to deposit elective deferrals?

Company A owns Company B

Company A has note payable for purchase of Company B

Individual Shareholder owns 100% of Company A

Company A wants to payoff note for purchase of Company B. The Individual Shareholder will have to provide Company A with the funds to payoff the note. He has enough money in his IRA to payoff the note.

We are looking for a way to use the IRA funds to payoff the note without taking a distribution. Can Individual Shareholder's IRA form a new corporation to invest in Company A?

In 2000, client converted her traditional Roth IRA to a Roth IRA and elected to spread the income over 4 years.

In 2000, her then CPA told her to recharacterize the Roth back to the traditional IRA in order to avoid paying the taxes. (Of course, we know that it was too late then, as the deadline was 12/31/1999)

Client has now enlisted the services of another CPA , who has informed her that the transaction was not legitimate because of the date it was done – it was done in 2000.

The client wants the custodian to reverse the recharacterization and make it like it never happened. The client claims the recharacterization is invalid.

What is the custodian’s responsibility here, since the custodian carried out the client’s written instructions to process the recharacterization?

I have two dentists who maintain sole-proprietorships within the same office and share the same office employees but split their costs (salaries and benefits) amongst them equally, as if they were "partners." I would like to say that they are affiliated with each other, seeing that they split all office expenses, rent, employees, etc. but because they are taxed as soleprops, is there anything that I am missing that would join these two practices together? In my gut I feel that they both provide services with one another and are acting as a partnership but I would like to have something to go by before I speak to them about it. Also, they have three NHCE's who "split time" for each DMD. In the aggregate they have over 1000 hrs but individually they have a little over 700. This is where I am coming up with the problem, because it sounds a lot like a law practice where each lawyer establishes its own soleprop and "share" the services of one admin asst who works less than 1000 between them. Any insight would be very much appreciated or just point in the right direction for an answer.

thanks

After the end of the GUST remedial amendment period (or after the 2001 RMD proposed regulations become effective), can partcipants still be given the option to defer distributions until termination of employment? Or was this option only allowed for plan documents that had not been amended to make the SBJPA change to Required Beginning Date?

Asked a different way: Under the 2001 proposed regs, can a plan document specify that the Required Beginning Date will be ag3 70 1/2 for all employees, but that participants will be given the option to defer their Required Beginning Date to as late as termination of employment?

Thank you to those who responded to my query regarding beneficiary status. I am currently trying to get the alleged Pension Administrator of my ex- husband's company to confirm in writing the details he has e-mailed me. I am not too sure that it isn't my ex-husband in disguise-he's the company's director of Human Resources. What rights do I have to disclosure.? I was not named on the 401k plan although I was married to my husband at the time. Is there an official body that can require the company to divulge the information?

Anyone know of a good PA lawyer?

Thank you for any advice

A private nonprofit has had a non-ERISA 403(B) arrangement for its employees for some considerable time.

Employer now wants to add matching contributions and is establishing an ERISA plan in order to do so. Is the initial effective date for the plan: (A) the date the new plan is established or (B) the date the non-ERISA 403(B) arrangement first came into existence?

Does it make any difference that the employer "memorialized" the terms of the non-ERISA plan, in writing, sometime in 2000? The written summary of terms does not contain all info. required under ERISA.

A and B are each 100% shareholder employees in their respective S-corps. A has regular full-time employees,B does not. A and B are also 50/50 members of an LLC. All are engaged in computer/software consulting and service. A's employees spend approximately 25% of their time working on projects for the LLC's customers, for which A bills the LLC. A sponsors a profit sharing plan covering himself and his employees. B derives 50-75% of his income from the LLC,paid to his corporation.A,B, and LLC do not form a controlled group. Is there an affiliated service group somewhere in the pile? Can B sponsor a plan in his corporation that will only benefit him?

Situation: A privately held company makes its match in company stock and gives its employees the right to sell the stock and to move the proceeds into any one of a variety of other choices (which presumably qualify under 404©). The company does not allow the employees to reinvest the funds in the company stock account, however. Does the plan qualify under ERISA 404©? I need any assistance. Thanks.

Say a participant chooses a 50% j&s pension, since he is remarried.

Say his gross pension = 1,000 and his ex spouse is to receive $ 500.

Would this result in the participant receiving a 50% j&s based solely on his $ 500 pension, as if there was no other pension and would his ex wife still be entitled to her $ 500, however she chooses to receive pension?

Any thoughts?

Hello,

I have a rather interesting situation: I have an

employee who is being leased to Employer C by Leasing Organization A (FYI: Employer C's 401(k)

plan has a 6-month service requirement).

The employee has met, or will very shortly meet, the 6-month service requirement for plan participation. However, Leasing Organization A is in the process of ending their business relationship with Employer C.

Employer C has now established a business relationship (for employee leasing purposes) with Leasing Organization B. As a result, the employee in question must now sign a new contract with Leasing Organization B. The employee is now being told that her prior service with Employer C under Leasing Organization A's contract will be disregarded for 401(k) participation eligibility purposes (i.e., she will have to wait another 6 months before being able to participate in Employer C's plan).

I believe that the change in leasing organizations is not relevant as far as the employee's eligibility to begin active participation in Employer C's 401(k) plan shortly, since she has met the service requirement.

Any helpful feedback on this issue would be greatly appreciated.

Assume that an employer stock fund held by a 401(k) will be designated as an ESOP.

The Plan currently provides that participants may elect to take distribution in the form of a lump sum or annual installment payments up to 15 installments.

Question: Does the Plan need to change its distribution requirements in order to meet the requirements of Section 409(o)?

Thanks in advance!

Does anyone have any idea how payroll companies will be handling the age 50 catch-up contributions? Will payroll companies be collecting participants' dates of birth? Will payroll companies that currently stop deferrals at the 402(g) limit now stop deferrals for plans that use catch-up at the 402(g) plus age 50 catch-up limit? How will payroll companies identify age 50 catch-up contributions that become age 50 catch-up due to the ADP limit?

We have a plan whose employer wants to convert their 401k to an ESOP in order to take advantage of the Code 404(k) deduction. Obviously, one of the investment options in the 401k is employer stock.

My concern lies with the fact that the employer wishes to allow participants to continue to direct their investments (deferral and match - the plan has no profit sharing component). Basically, they want to continue to operate as a 401k, but on an ESOP document.

I have never heard of an ESOP where a participant could opt out of company stock via an investment election. This employer's accounting firm is really pushing this issue, stating they have done this same thing with other clients.

Am I missing something, or can participants (under 55) in an ESOP opt out of investing in the company stock and the plan is still an ESOP? Any suggestions, cites etc. would be greatly appreciated.

I have a Money Purchase Plan and a Profit Sharing Plan. With the new EGTRRA maximums in the Profit Sharing Plan in 2002, we want to dump the Money Purchase Plan. Is it better to merge the two plans or terminate the Money Purchase and roll proceeds to the Profit Sharing?

If merging is the better way to go, what steps do I need to take? (i.e. notification to employees, amendment, final 5500 etc.)I have been unable to find clear instructions on merging in my research.

Thank you.

Situation: A privately held company makes its match in company stock and gives its employees the right to sell the stock and to move the proceeds into any one of a variety of other choices (which presumably qualify under 404©). The company does not allow the employees to reinvest the funds in the company stock account, however. Does the plan qualify under ERISA 404©? I need any assistance. Thanks.

My question is regarding eligibility. We have a plan that has it service requirement as 6 months and an employee can enter semi -annually. The employer wants to amend their plan effective 1/1/2002 so that the service requirements are one year and quarterly entry. My question is regarding an employee that is hired 9/1/01. They will not have met their eligibility requirements by the end of the year to participate in the plan. Since the amendment takes effect in 1/1/02, when would that person be eligible to participate in the plan? Do you follow the old service requirements or does that employee fall under the new amendment and has to wait one year?

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Assume that Company A, a Fortune 500 Company, is in the process of making a number of acquisitions. Company A maintains Plan X, a 401 (k) plan. What are people doing in each of the following situations to protect the qualification of Plan X: (a) Company A buys Company B and merges its Plan Y into Plan X; (B) Company A buys the assets of a trade or business of Company C, another Fortune 500 Company, where the trade or business employs 75 employees; © Company A transfers 30 employees of Company A's subsidiary, A-1, and wants to transfer their account balances under Company A-1's plan, Plan Z, into Plan X. Company A-1 has taken a number of aggressive positions on a number of issues involving Plan Z; and (d) assume the same facts as in example ©, except that Company A-1's CEO is transferred to Company A and only her account balance under Plan Z is spun off into Plan X.

How do the requirements of USERRA work with a multi-employer plan? Obviously, the employee works or can work for several employers during any period of time. If this multi-employer plan participant goes on military leave, how are the USERRA benefits and contributions made up? How are the credits allocated between employers? As you can tell I don't work with multi-employer plans but was asked the question. I figured I could learn something so I am looking into the matter. Thanks!