This issue has been touched on in other threads, but I wanted to see if anyone has any additional thoughts on how to handle demutualization compensation distributed to a terminated noncontributory defined benefit plan.

Two specific questions:

1. Where do you intend to park the stock until you allocate the shares to employees (to avoid any reversion under section 4980)? (The plan I am dealing with has a group annuity contract held by the employer.)

2. Is anyone taking the position that the employer can keep the proceeds, and that section 4980 does not apply?

Thanks.

card

(And thanks to Everett Moreland for his assistance.)

All nhces and hces benefited for the 401k part of the test.

There was no matching contribution, so no hces benefited for the 401m part of the test.

On line 3, can I check box 3d for the 401k part and also check box 3b for the 401m part of the test?

Or must I go to line 4 and enter information on each disaggregated part of the plan?

One of our employees has a dependent from a previous marriage that is on her insurance in WA. Her dependent is now living with the father in CA. As I am told by the insurance company, the only way the child can continue coverage is if he changes to the PPO plan, since they cannot have dual state HMO coverage. Is there any life event that would allow such a change? The employee herself is staying put in WA and has not had a change in job status.

Thanks!

I applied for a Hardship withdrawal to prevent eviction. My letter from my ladlord states: PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU HAVE EIGHT (8) DAYS IN WHICH TO REMIT THE BALANCE DUE. AFTER 8 DAYS YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE REFERRED TO OUR ATTORNEY TO SECURE PAYMENT DUE AS WELL AS REGAIN POSSESSUION OF THE LEASED PREMISES. Please avoid additional fees for attorney and court cost by paying tje Total Balance Due within (5) days from the date of this official notice.

It has the amount on the letter and it is dated. It also has been cc'd to their attorney. Now they're telling me that I need to show them a notice to quit and vacate the premises and that my letter was insufficient because it does not say eviction. It says regain posession. It means the same thing. I live in Missouri. Is this right?

I left my previous employer in early June of this year. I was sent a form to fill out and told that I had to return the form within 30 days to roll over my 401K to an IRA of my choice, or they would cash out the account and send me a check. I opened an IRA account with Franklin Templeton, filled out all the necessary paperwork for the rollover and submitted it well within the 30 day limit. It is now mid-November and my 401K has STILL not been rolled over. I was contacted by Franklin Templeton last month and they said that my money had not yet been rolled over; and was there a problem? I called my previous employer and spoke with the accountant. He said that he had delayed sending my rollover request to the payroll company for about a month because he wanted to put a bunch of them through all at once. He said that the payroll company was having some problems and that the rollover should be completed by September 15. Today, I checked my IRA account online and saw that the rollover has STILL not taken place. I sent the following message to the accountant at my prior employer:

"Can you please update me as to the status of the rollover to my IRA? I just checked my online account status at Franklin Templeton and it's still not showing the rollover. This is getting a bit ridiculous; I left SGS over three months ago now, and I don't think it should be taking this long, no matter what the circumstances."

He wrote back:

"Whether you think it ridiculous or too long does not concern me, however, in realization that some failure has occured, I have resubmitted your request hoping that it will be properly handled this time. Time will tell the effectiveness of that strategy."

Am I being unreasonable here? It seems to me that they are simply delaying in order to be jerks. I did not have a particularly pleasant break with this company (I turned in my two-week notice when I received a new job and they turned around and said, "Don't bother coming back in tomorrow.") This is rather typical of the company. I just don't want my 401K funds held hostage any longer. Should I consult an attorney to begin legal action against them?

As a result of EGTRRA.... Do the qualified plan direct rollover rules and the 20% mandatory federal tax withholding rules for distributions not rolled over apply to 457 plans next year ?

Also in 2002 may the surviving spouse beneficiary of a 457 plan participant roll a death dist. to an IRA ?

I would appreciate anyones input.

E/er has been incorporated 2 1/2 years. Employer blew safe harbor 401(k) (to be effective 1/1/01) b/c broker didn't get adoption agreement executed. E/er gave safe harbor notice prior to end of 2000. Alternative in mind is PSP with 100% vesting and fund at 3% of compensation. Get safe harbor 401(k) in place as of 1/1/02. Effective 1/1/02 amend vesting schedule of PSP to 6 year graded vesting. Issue is whether Reg. §1.411(a)-8T(B)(3) allows all employees who have been there since day 1 to elect to stay under the old 100% vested schedule? Does the Reg. actually mean what it says? Any help appreciated. Thanks

E/er has been incorporated 2 1/2 years. Employer blew safe harbor 401(k) (to be effective 1/1/01) b/c broker didn't get adoption agreement executed. E/er gave safe harbor notice prior to end of 2000. Alternative in mind is PSP with 100% vesting and fund at 3% of compensation. Get safe harbor 401(k) in place as of 1/1/02. Effective 1/1/02 amend vesting schedule of PSP to 6 year graded vesting. Issue is whether Reg. §1.411(a)-8T(B)(3) allows all employees who have been there since day 1 to elect to stay under the old 100% vested schedule? Does the Reg. actually mean what it says? Any help appreciated. Thanks

I have encountered a situation where a minimum required distribution for 2001 was calculated early in the year using the old MRD tables. Using the new (MDIB) table would have yielded an MRD approximately $11,000 less than using the old table. Client was advised to take the higher amount; now they are angry at having to pay the tax on the extra $11,000, and want to know if they can return it to the IRA saying the additional distribution was in error.

Has anybody dealt with this? Can the $$$ be returned? Any help would be appreciated!

Unfortunately, and extremely sadly, we have been

asked what proof of death would be required for a

participant missing as a result of the recent national

tragedy. I am at a loss. Has anyone had to look into

this in the past?

I used to work for a private company and I amassed an ESOP with aprox $20K in value. I did not invest any of my own money; these were bonuses awarded via the ESOP over the course of 5 years. I no longer work for the company, but I am 100% vested.

The company is being bought out for cash, and I'll soon be receiving (I assume) a check for the value my share in the ESOP.

I want to take most of the payout and invest it into an IRA, but I also have about $5K in debt I'd like to pay off with these proceeds.

Are there any tax implications with this plan? Any advice?

mtz206@yahoo.com

A participant retired at age 62 (his Early Retirement Age) and elected to have his benefit paid as a 100% J&S monthly annuity. After two years off payroll he was re-hired and his benefits were suspended with the proper notice given.The notice also contained a statement from the plan sponor to the effect that any payments missed during the suspension period would be made up when the particpant finally went off payroll. The plan sponsor says that this information was give to him by the plan's prior actuary.The plan makes no mention of any "make-up" contributions other than the standard 3-month catch-up required by the regs. The participant is still employed and is now past what otherwise would have been his Normal Retirement Age.The plan permits in-service distributions to participants adfter NRA.Questions are as follows:

1. Does the fact that the participant had retired and had started benefit payments preclude his re-entry into plan upon his re-employment? In other words,is the suspension of benefits supposed to keep him in the category of "retired,in receipt of benefits" as far as the plan is concerned?

2. If not,is he entitled to additional accrued benefits and post-NRA adjustments as per the plan?

3.Since the plan sponsor has already "committed" himself to the make-up of the suspended benefits is there anything to prevent the plan from being amended to allow for it?

4.Any opinion as to whether the post-NRA in-service distribution provision can be used to justify re-commencement of benefits,with or without adjustment per item 2. above?

5. If he is entitled to additional accruals must a new J&S notice be given at such time as benefits re-commence?

We have an employee who has rolloved over his money into our company 401(k) Plan and now wants to take out a loan. However, he is not a "participant" yet of our Plan because he has not completed a year of service with the company. May we still give him a loan since this money was rolled over by him into our Plan? (Our Plan states that a Participant may ask for a loan but defines a "Participant" as an employee who completes a year of service.) Thanks.

If an employer counts predecessor employer service when acquiring employees of a newly purchased company, do they enter the plan immediately or do they enter the plan on the next entry date?

A company recently went out of business (the owners abandoned the company) and there are legal issues amongst the owners. I'm still in contact with the trustee of the plan who was a former owner of the company. He wants to terminate the plan since the company no longer exists and the participants are asking for the plan distributions. Normally, a board resolution would have to be prepared but since the company no longer exists, can the plan trustee sign a resolution and amendments to terminate the plan?

We have a plan that we are setting up on Quantech. It will be tracked daily and involves modeling. The problem is that all the reports print all the underlying investments relating to each particular model. Our client just wants to see the Model Investments and does not want to confuse the participants with all the underlying investments. I have spoken with Corbel and they do not have any reports that suppresses the underlying investments, but says that Crystal says it can be done. Before we attempted to tackle it, I thought maybe someone may already have something like that.

I'd appreciate any help in this area.

Limited partnership company in SD is just starting a Simple IRA plan. The majority share holder (99%) of the company is also majority share holder (98%) of a limited partnership company in CA. The CA company already has a Simple IRA in which they selected employee eligibility requirements to be minimum 2 years of employment. Here in the SD company, we want the employee eligibility requirement to be 90 days which is perfectly fine with the brokerage firm administrating the Simple IRA for both companies. The accountant thinks there is a discrimination issue with the government if the two companies have different eligibility requirements being that both companies have the same general partner who own majority stock in both. Any ideas or thoughts?

I have an associate that is the managing partner of a partnership. The partnership has fallen on very hard times and has run out of money. There have also been 401k funds that have been withheld from employees pay that have not been deposited. As far as I can tell the partners had the best of intentions to keep the partnership viable but didn't so the money went toward other expenses. I have several questions: 1) What sort of liability do the partners have (i.e., criminal or civil or both); 2) If they can somehow find someone to help bail them out of this situation what is the remedy for untimely deposits; 3) What other issues should be considered?

Thanks

Limited partnership company just signing up for Simple IRA plan in SD. The majority stock holder (99%) also has majority stock ownership (98%) in another limited partnership company in CA. The CA company already has a Simple IRA plan in place where they have set the employee eligibility requirements of 2 years employment before able to participate. Here in the SD company, we want the employee eligibility requirement to be 90 days employment. This is OK with broker, however, accountant says there are discrimination issues with government to be concerned about. Any ideas or thoughts?

I have been asked to be a Trustee for my employer's 401 k plan. There are 50 participants. A new administrator/investment advisor are taking over our existing plan that had previosly been through a bank's Trust Dept. They are also asking that we obtain fidelity bonds for each trsutee.

What questions do I need to ask concerning the exetent of my liabilities, responsibilities and should I have insurance to protect myself ?

Are the others issues that I/we need to consider ?