Calendar year MPP, client does not want to fund the 10% formula contribution in 2001. Since it's past the date when full-time ees have worked 1,000 hours (non-std plan with 1,000 hour and last day provisions), I don't think he can amend the plan to reduce (or change to 0%) the formula. Is there some way to do this that I may have missed? If not, has anyone ever gone the IRS waiver route, and was it successful?

Thanks. Tom

Can anyone help me to identify an appropriate training course/seminar for staff who need to learn the basics of 401k plan administration. I'm speaking of a primer that literally will start with the ABC's on up. Thanks.

We are winding down the assets of a plan that was terminated several years ago (we have missing participants). Does the plan still need to be amended for GUST?

Sarah Richards

Is it necessary to have participants make positive elections as to whether they will make catch up contributions and to specify the dollar amount?

For a new 401(k) plan in 2001 (1/1/01 to 12/31/01 plan year) which key employee definition do you use to determine the top-heavy status of the plan for the 2001 plan year? It is my understanding that the new definition of key employee under EGTRRA can be used to determine if the plan is top-heavy for the 2002 plan year. Can this new definition also be used for a 1st year plan to determine the top-heavy status for 2001 or will 2 top-heavy determinations have to be done for the 1st year 2001 plan?

Any guidance will be appreciated.

Thank you.

An employer has designed and launched its own private mutual fund which they want to offer as an investment option to its participants of its 401(k) plan. If the employer complies with Section 404© and offers other investment options, are there any restrictions on them including this investment in their 401(k) Plan?

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.