I am working on bring to life a basically non-existent education assistance program (tuition reimbursement).

I am building models but the one ingredient I do not have is the percent of employee utilization. We have an education assistance program in place but the way it is written no one uses it or can use it. Over the last 3 years only 9 employees of the 2000+ employees that are eligible for the benefit have used the program.

What is the percent of utilization of the education assistance program at your company? Do you have plan in place that you are proud of and are will to share? I would like to hear from people in the retail industry but any information on utilization, no matter what industry would be helpful.

Thanks

One-man Corporation had a DB plan terminated a few years back in which the benefit had been distributed and the employer-owner paid taxes on. Now, he wants to start a new DB. Since he has already paid taxes on the previous DB, can the dollar limit be restarted (instead of being offset by the accrued benefit of the prior DB) as if the previous DB had never existed? Do you have a citation on your answer? Thanks.

Our company has changed health care providers from a regular BCBS to a government BCBS plan. Some of the employees have declined coverage and are being told they have to take the coverage if they are either not insured or have not provided a letter from their current insurance company. I declined and provided a copy of my insurance card and am told this is not sufficient. What is the length of time you should be allowed to review a policy to determine if you want to accept it and can a company deduct payments from your check if you have declined the insurance? Is it legal for the company to require proof in order to decline their coverage?

Thanks

Five or six years ago, at some conference at which the IRS was presenting, a question was asked about whether a frozen profit sharing plan could continue to exist indefinitely. The IRS's response was that without the possibility of future contributions, it could not. Since then, we have been restating our frozen profit sharing plans as 0% money purchase plans, since IRS indicated that this did not present the same problem.

However, we have seen no mention of this position either formally or informally since then. Is anyone familiar with this issue or does anyone have any direct or indirect evidence of the IRS's position? It is a pain in the neck to restate them if we don't need to.

Thanks for any input,

M.

For a number of reasons that I will not go into here (and that I know will not be apparent), I have a client that wants its plan to provide that it will make distributions within five plan years following termination of employment.

As participants terminate, the employer will decide when it wants to offer a distribution. So long as this discretion is not exercised in a discriminatory fashion (ie, in application, does not discriminate in favor of HCEs), can this be done? I realize that this sounds stupid, invites controversy in treating participants differently, and that it "smells bad", but the client is determined to do this if there is no legal impediment to doing so. Is there a statute, regulation, ruling, etc. that would prevent this?

My client maintains an ESOP that requires distributions to be made available to the participant the 6th plan year following termination of employment (with exception for retirement, death, disability). Client wants to amend the plan to say that distributions will be available NO LATER THAN the 6th plan year following termination of employment. The idea is to give the employer discretion as to when to offer a distribution to each participant. With the amendment, the employer could offer a distribution in Year 1 if it felt the stock price was rising, or wait until year 5 if it felt the price was falling. This would only be a right to a distribution as, of course, absent retirement or death, we could not force a distribution. This is an S-corp. ESOP with cash only distributions. The participant's account is not converted to cash until an election is made to take a distribution. ASSUMING this discretion was exercised in a way that does not discriminate in favor of HCEs, can this be done? I assume it may be a benefit,right or feature that would need to be tested separately.

This "smells" bad to me for a number of reasons. I can foresee participants being angry that they were not given the same offers as other participants, etc. I suppose there could be fiduciary issues as well (though it is up to the participant on whether to take the distribution offer). I think this is a bad idea; my client disagrees and wants to do this unless there is a legal impediment to doing so. This could also be a more general question in any qualified plan: can the employer exercise discretion as to the timing of a distribution? I have seen plans that say distributions will be made within one year, but have not seen anything longer than one year and not in the context of an ESOP.

Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Does anyone know what is the time limit, if there is, that plan administrators are given to send out terminated participants' distributions. For example, if a participant terminated in Feb 2001 and requested distribution in July, by when are plan administrators required to complete the distribution.

If possible, please reference the IRS or DOL ruling, whichever applies. Thanks.

I heard recently that the DOL has informally indicated that it believes premium holidays, rebates or waivers for mewas or group health insurance trust would be violation of fiduciary duties because such holidays only benefit the employer. Has anyone else heard that or could they point to the article or something that says that! I would appreciate any help on this urgent matter.

Does anyone have a summary of the impact of each provision of EGTRRA on DC plan administration? For instance the catch-up contribution provision will impact the Admin system, enrollment forms, etc.

Most qualified plans must be amended by 12/31/01 for the changes brought on by the Community Relief Act of 2000 (CRA) to sections 414(s)(2) & 415©(3). The IRS is going to offer 2 model amendments that can be relied upon by plan sponsors, one for the 415©(3) comp. definition & one for 414(s) comp definition.

Will both of these amendments be required for Gov Plans? Is the amendment for 414(s) necessary since that section is of limited applicability to Gov Plans?

All feedback will be appreciated.

Can a plan that has not been terminated, but has no participants and no assets be merged with another plan?

One of our subs has a plan that is separate from the parent’s plan, everyone in the sub has separated from service and will be taking distributions. Only one participant remaining and will be gone soon.

The sub plan was frozen and everyone in the sub plan was eligible under the parent plan. Therefore, the parent plan was a successor plan and, because 100% of the sub plan participants were eligible to participate in the parent plan, the 2% exception did not apply.

Perhaps, I am not applying the successor plan rule and 2% exception correctly. Do you think we can terminate the sub plan?

Thanks for your help.

Can a plan that has not been terminated, but has no participants and no assets be merged with another plan?

One of our subs has a plan that is separate from the parent’s plan, everyone in the sub has separated from service and will be taking distributions. Only one participant remaining and will be gone soon.

The sub plan was frozen and everyone in the sub plan was eligible under the parent plan. Therefore, the parent plan was a successor plan and, because 100% of the sub plan participants were eligible to participate in the parent plan, the 2% exception did not apply.

Thanks for your help.

Can a plan that has not been terminated, but has no participants and no assets be merged with another plan?

One of our subs has a plan that is separate from the parent’s plan, everyone in the sub has separated from service and will be taking distributions. Only one participant remaining and will be gone soon.

The sub plan was frozen and everyone in the sub plan was eligible under the parent plan. Therefore, the parent plan was a successor plan and, because 100% of the sub plan participants were eligible to participate in the parent plan, the 2% exception did not apply.

Thanks for your help.

If an individual hires a "babysitter" and pays him/her up front, withholding applicable payroll taxes and submitting Form 1040, Schedule H, could the salary being paid to the babysitter be taken out of pay through a Section 125 dependent care program?

Thanks for any replies.

Are most people restating their Section 125 plan documents to include the recent final regulations? I have an insurance agent friend, with over 100 clients with POP plans, that was told by Ceridian that no restatement was necessary. It seems to me that most documents will need to be restated. I realize the language in the current document will need to be looked at, but as a general rule won't most plan sponsors need to restate their documents by January 1, 2002?

Any references you have would be appreciated.

A man was walking along a California beach and was in deep prayer to the Lord. He said, "Lord, you have promised to give me the desires of my heart. That's what I am asking you for right now. Please give me a confirmation that you will grant my wish." Suddenly the sky clouded up over his head and the Lord in a booming voice spoke to him.

"I have searched your heart and determined it to be pure. The last time I issued a blank wish request it was to Solomon. He did not disappoint me with his request for wisdom. I think I can trust that you won't disappoint me either. Because you have been faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish you ask for."

The man sat and thought about it for a while and said, "I've always wanted to go to Hawaii, but I'm deadly afraid of flying and I get very seasick on boats. Could you build a bridge to Hawaii, so I can drive over there to visit whenever I want?"

The Lord laughed and said, "That's impossible! Think of the logistics of that! How would the supports ever reach the bottom of the Pacific? Think of how much concrete...how much steel! Your request is very materialistic, a little disappointing. I could do it, but it's hard for me to justify your craving for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of another wish, a wish you think would honor and glorify Me as well."

The man thought about it for a long while and tried to think of a really good wish. Finally, he said, "Here's the deal, Lord. I've been married for many years. My wife always said that I don't care and that I'm insensitive. So I wish that I could understand women...I want to know how they feel inside and what they're thinking when they give me the silent treatment...I want to know why they're crying...I want to know what they really mean when they say 'nothing'...I want to know how to make them truly happy...That's the wish that I want, Lord."

After a few minutes, God said, "You want two lanes or four on that bridge?"

In restating an ERISA 403(B) plan for GUST compliance, is it advisable to state different effective dates for each component of the GUST changes - e.g., make the cash-out increase to $5,000 effective for plan years beginning after August 5, 1997, but make the elimination of the look back rule for purposes of determining $5,000 cash out effective March 22, 1999.

Won't this make for a very confusing document? Is stating each effective date even necessary given that there is no IRS review process? And, even if each effective date were stated, shouldn't the effective date be keyed to when the adopting employer actually changed its procedures to be in line with the GUST provisions?

I am employed by a county government in the state of Florida. My county/employer will pay for single coverage health insurance with no charge to me. I do not take this insurance because I am covered under my wife's family plan with her job. I have heard of "alternative medical reimbursement benefit plans" that allow a person, such as my self (that does participate in their employer's HMO), to use the funds that were allocated for my single coverage health insurance with my job to be used for medical expenses that are not covered by a family plan in reimbursement format for items such as co payments, prescriptions, mileage to the doctor, eyeware, dentistry work, etc.

My county government would like to implement such a plan and run the plan itself. We have only heard of insurance companies running these plans. Has anybody ever heard of a governmental agency running such a plan and what does the law allow?

The IRS people I have spoken to seem to think it would be an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA USC 3 (1) ? My superiors do not want any problems with IRS or DOL. Can anybody offer any advice?

I just received a new professional liability policy from a carrier which is replacing Lloyds.

The policy is headed "Professional Liability Policy for Specified Professions"

The declarations page lists the occupation as "actuary"

Then, in the body of the policy we have "Exclusions ...This policy does not apply to any 'claim' ...arising out of .... Services as an attorney, accountant, actuary..."

I guess it could be worse. They could have added a surcharge to the premium.:confused:

Our internal audit department is entertaining a proposal from a claims audit firm (BMI Audit Services) to audit our health plan. I am somewhat opposed to the audit because I don't want our employees to be chased down to repay monies that may have been paid to them in error. BMI says they are not paid on a recovery basis and that they focus on corrective actions that need to be taken as a result of their audit findings. Has anyone been through a claims audit? Anyone used BMI for the audit? Results? Am I worried about nothing?