A construction company has a 401(k) Plan with a 6 month service eligibilty requirement, with monthly entry. The company does have a high number of employees who get temporarily layed off do to low work orders at any give time. It does not appear that this is due to "seasonal" conditions.

What would happen in the following situation: Employee is hired 1/1/01, works 4 months, then is layed off for 3 months, then comes back and works the rest of the year. When does he enter the Plan?

Check the Plan document you say? Document does not address what to do in these situations. I even spoke with the document provider (national document firm) who confirmed this. I was hoping to see in the definition section of the document something that would say that an employee is someone who is providing services to the employer, but no such language is in there.

Important fact is that the employer continues to pay for health premiums and certain other fringe benefits for the employees while they are layed off.

This last point leads me to believe in the above situation, the employee is in the Plan on 7/1/01. Because he is receiving some form of ongoing compensation from the employer (eg health premium payments), he must still be considered an employee, even though layed off. But since he did not work even 1 hour in those last 2 months, does that trump the fact that he is receiving some form of compensation in those months, meaning he is not in on 7/1/01?

Any comments are appreciated.

Money Purchase Plan terminated as of 1/26/99. Filed for IRS approval 4/9/99 and received approval 11/9/99. All the assets have been properly distributed.

Just recieved notice that the IRS want to audit the plan for the pye 6/30/99. They have a list of 24 items to gather for the audit. Explained to the reviewer that the plan was just reviewed and approved for the plan termination and asked if he could scale down his requirements for the audit. He said he could not.

This seems like an unfair burden and expense for the taxpayer.

Any suggestions?

May a 401(k) plan with a last day requirement for matching contributions make and allocate the match throughout the year, permit the participant to direct investment of the amount allocated, and then take it away if the participant is not employed on the last day?

Primary concerns: (1) taking away something allocated and communicated, and (2) permitting someone other than the trustee to direct the investment of funds he eventually may not be entitled to.

Thanks for any thoughts and experience.

We are using Relius administration with the VRU and Web modules. I am wondering what other users are doing for website security. Do you have your websites in house? What type of software are you using for the secure socket layer? Are you using any other method to secure your site?

Thank you for your help!

Company A acquired Company B in 2000. Company B's 401(k) plan is merged into Company A's 401(k) plan on 3/1/2001.

Company A's plan bases vesting on elapsed time (employment year). Company B's plan bases vesting on 1000 hours (plan year).

I am struggling with how to accommodate the simultaneous changes in computation period (plan year to employment year) and service crediting (hours counting to elapsed time) methods.

Anyone have any suggestions, maybe with some examples? I have looked at the regs, but it is not clear to me how they operate when making both changes simultaneously.

I'm part of a SARSEP plan my employer set up with Equitable - but I'd like to move some of the funds to another type of investment other than mutual funds and definitely out of Equitable's fund groups. Can I do this? How do I do it?

If we have a gap in coverage while changing carriers, is this conisidered a termination of the plan, ending coverage for COBRA purposes? At some point this gap should become large enough that it qualifies as a termination. How long? Has anyone confronted this issue? Thougts? Authority? Thanks!

We are a consulting firm that performs compliance and record-keeping services for qualified retirement plans on a fee basis.

We have a client, a small employer, who sponsors a 401(k) profit sharing retirement plan. The employer recently filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and ceased to exist.

This client did not pay for our past services. These past services were covered under a Service Provider Agreement that described our services and rates, and was signed by the plan’s trustees.

What is our legal liability to provide further services for this plan? The employer does not intend to file for a letter of favorable termination. Its representatives most likely cannot file Form 5500 nor process distribution forms, Forms 1099-R, tax withholding, etc. accurately.

Can we in any way be held responsible for refusing to provide services for this plan due to lack of past and future payment? Specifically, these services would protect the tax-qualified status of the participant’s retirement benefit.

Facts: Medical Practice, Corporation (PA) 4 MD’s each 25% owners. Profit sharing plan with max contribution. One of the MD’s has another practice (Proprietorship) which also sponsors a PSP. His total anual additions combining

the two plans has been approx. $50,000.

I just assumed duties as “Plan Administrator” for the Corp plan. I have been assured by CPA of the MD in question that this arrangement has been reviewed by a tax attorney and there is no problem. There is NO connection between the

practices, there are NO referrals, there is NO possibility of this being an Affiliated Service Group. Why am I worried?

Any insight or experience with Affiliated Service Groups would be appreciated.

Sign me;

Just a simple TPA

Association of professionals sponsors a MEWA, pursuant to which benefits are funded through adopting employer (and employee) contributions. Each adopting employer therefore sponsors an ERISA welfare benefit plan. No adopting employer has more than 20 participants, so no 5500 is required if ech plan is considered unfunded, fully insured or a combination. I think the separate arrangements can be considered fully insured because benefits are paid exclusively through an insurance contract (each adopting employer must sign a participation agreement), and premiums are paid directly to the insurance carrier (the MEWA). Does anyone have any insight into this?

Also, assuming that the arrangements are exempt from the 5500 filing requirement, does this obviate the requirement of the MEWA to provide each adopting employer with the information required to complete a Schedule A (ERISA 103(a)(2))? Thanks

We have a non-erisa 403b plan, when I took over this job I found out that some payments were not made for year 2000 for 4 employees. I sent a check in to put this money back into the account. The employees terminated and the employees have already withdrawn their money and the administrator sent me back the check. My question is as the employer do I send this money to the former employee or keep it for the company? The money has not been withheld from the paychecks because it is employer deferred. Also, if anyone knows how to tax this money if the employee receives it or do I need to worry about taxes at all?

A VEBA providing post-retirement medical benefits has been paying the employee portion of premiums for medical insurance for retirees. If the medical insurance pays a dividend of which the attributable portion is placed into the VEBA, what is its tax treatment for UBIT purposes?

My company terminated the Flexible Spending Account on December 31, 2000. There was about $1,500 left in one person's account and they overpaid the limit on another person's account. They refuse to refund us because I am asking for the full $1,500 not the balance that is actually left in the account. I feel they had made an error in overpaying and should be held responsible for getting that money back. Do I have legal recourse to obtain this balance?

We sponsor a standardized prototype plan. We have just found out a client also maintains another plan. What are the GUST determination letter filing responsibilities of this client? I know that they cannot rely on our notification letter when it is received.

We recently changed administrators mid -year and were told by the new administrator that they were not responsible for completing the 1099's or 945 for the distributions that were done prior to them taking over. The response was to go back to the old Administrator to have that done. Is that the norm?

In 1999 an employer established a cross-tested safe harbor 401(k) plan. A 3% non-elective contribution was calculated and intended to be allocated along with a small discretionary employer contribution on behalf of the one owner in accordance with the cross-test feature. However, while performing the annual recordkeeping for 2000, it was discovered that neither the 3% non-elective contribution nor the discretionary amount was ever contributed to the plan. What is the effect on the plan's safe harbor status? Can the employer make-up the delinquent contributions and earnings under the SCP program, as they are within the correction period, and preserve the safe harbor status? As an additional note, the plan would not pass the required ADP test in the event the safe harbor status is revoked.

Under the new, simplified Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) regulations:

1. If the RMD is being paid to a participant and a spouse more than 10 years younger, and the spouse dies, does the calculation change to using the uniform table, or do calculations continue as if the spouse had not died, or how are future RMDs calculated?

2. If the participant changes the beneficiary to or from a spouse that is more than 10 years younger, does the calculation change based on the new beneficiary?

3. If the participant dies after the Required Beginning Date (RBD), are calculations of RMDs to a spouse beneficiary different depending on whether the uniform table was being used or the rules for a spouse more than 10 years younger were being used?

An employer requires employees to submit medical claims to the employer who then submits them to the TPA for processing. Are there any regulations preventing this practice or would this fall under the privacy act. What good reasons can we give the employer for ceasing this practice. They don't see actual medical records but do see medical diagnosis, etc.

A Plan allows an emplyee to receive his early retirement benefit in the form of a lump sum. The Plan says that the lump sum is the present value of his benefit. It does not use a defined term like Accrued Benefit, for example.

Do you think the lump sum s/b the present value of immediate benefit or present value of age 65 deferred benefit?

That is how much is open for interpretation and/or what is correct or most logical approach?

Gary

Over the past couple of years we have amended 401(k) profit sharing plans to allow immediate entry for 401(k) and matching contributions but require a 1 year wait to participate in the Profit Sharing portion of the plan. Most of the plans have been large so there was no top heavy questions. However I now have a couple of small top heavy plans that want to use the immediate entry for the 401(k) and match portion but do not like the idea of qiving these short service EEs top heavy minimums.

Can we exclude them like we do for ADP/ACP testing.

I can find nothing in the 416 regs.