PLR 9009052 states that accrued paid time off is includible in an employee's income when not subject to substantial limitations or restrictions. "Limitations & restrictions" include maintaining a minimum number of accrued hours, a maximum number of accrued hours (above which hours are automatically converted to cash & distributed to employee) and the requirement that hours be cashed in in blocks of, for instance, 40 or more. What is not clear is whether a 40 hour block of time that can be cashed out, but is not cashed out, is taxed twice: once when it is "included in income" because not cashed out, and again when it is actually converted to cash and distributed to the employee. Any comments on or experience with this issue? What is the status of IRS enforcement in this area, if any?

We are quite frustrated with our current software for calculating RMDs, pre-59 1/2 distribution options and general retirememt distribution projections for clients. I won't state which one we're currently using, but I'd like to have input from anyone out there who relies on such software for retirement/estate planning. Any recommendations?

Does any PPO or Indemnity plan administrator right now provide a company's employees with secure internet access to the data on their medical claims? In that way an employee has access to the claims data on a 24/7 basis.

I have a plan that waits five years before allocating forfeitures and I have setup forfeiture accounts for the past 4 years that hold each years' forfeiture amounts. Are these accounts included in calculating the top heavy percentage or are just the balances in the participants' accounts included.

For a client who wanted to take early withdrawals, I had prepared projections based on a series of substantially equal periodic payments to avoid the 10-percent tax penalty. The projections under each method i.e. minimum distribution method, amortization method, and annuity method, differ. What the client now wishes to do is to start receiving a specify amount of distributions. Is it possible for the client to do this?

A plan sponsor desires to use automatic enrollments starting 1/1/2001, the first day of the next plan year. Given that we are still in the remedial amendment period, is there a requirement that the plan document contain the wording to authorize the automatic enrollments (prior to the GUST restatement)?

Thanks.

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of committee reports relating to the enactment of ERISA? Specifically, I am looking for reports relating to 4021(B)(2). Thanks.

Prior to expiration of remedial amendment period, plan sponsor amended plan to incorporate required changes under TRA 86. In operation and prior to amendment, plan sponsor began adding elective deferrals to 414(s) definition of compensation. Plan amendment included a retroactive effective date. Was this improper, considering that the change was elective, rather than required? Can anyone give me any authority?

In reviewing IRS guidance relating to GUST amemdment procedures, the IRS seems to permit plan sponsors to amend their plans on a retroactive basis with respect to certain elective law changes, such as the new 401(k) safe harbors. However, in reviewing similar IRS guidance relating to TRA 86, etc. amendments, the language is not as clear.

Thanks.

Also, does anyone know of any rules that would grandfather an old 457(B) plan from having the minimum distribution rules apply to the plan? Thanks.

Could a participant in a 457(B) plan have made a 242(B) election? Thanks.

If I have a Safe Harbor plan with the Safe Harbor matching option for salary deferral contributions, should I use characteristic code '2K' for this? '2K' would be used if the Safe Harbor match is considered a 401(m) arrangement; however, since the Safe Harbor match is not subject to 401(m) discrimination testing, is it really considered part of a 401(m) arrangement? The instructions DO specify that QMACs should not use the '2K' characteristic code, and the Safe Harbor match seems to me to have more in common with QMACs than with regular matching contributions subject to ACP testing. How are other people reporting the Safe Harbor matching and, for that matter, with the SIMPLE 401(k) matching contribution on line 8(a) of the 5500 Form?

To what extent are SEP-IRA's protected from a participant's creditors (judgment or otherwise)? To what extent, if any, does 401(a)(13) apply to SEP-IRA's? I would think that the normal IRA rules would apply.

I have a small medical practice considering going from a profit sharing plan to SEP-IRA's and the issue has come up. I have already pointed out the other differences, e.g., 100% vesting, comp to comp allocation, etc.. but this one is the important one to the doc's.

I have been searching the internet looking for help regarding a problem that i am having with my retirement benefits.

I am a new employee who was hired on 7/10/00. I had 31 days to select either one of two retirement plans: cash balanced pension type plan that included a 401k company match of 50% OR investor plan which is soley a 401k with a 100% company match. I had selected the investor plan on 7/14/00 by mailing in the forms.

On August 29th, I received a letter from my Employee Benefits group stating that I had been automatically enrolled in the pension plan since they have not heard from me. (NOTE: This benefit is a ONE-TIME enrollment.) Within in this letter, it states to call the employee infocenter hotline immediately if any information is incorrect. I called them the next business day and I was told that I had to send an "appeal " letter to my Employee Benefits Committee board and they will review the case, afterwhich they will render their decision which is binding and final!

I'm am really upset. I selected to work for this company because of the 401k investor plan. This is the most important benefit to me at this time in my life (I'm single and young).

My question is: Do you know of any websites/periodicals/references that I can use to write my appeal? Do I have strong enough case to win the appeal?

I don't know what to do. Should I contact a lawyer?

Also, please note that due to the nature of my job (telecommuter/home-based), my new employee orientation was conducted via teleconference in less that an hour! I strongly believe that if I had attended the orientation in person, all forms could have been collected on site and this issue would not have arisen.

Thank you so much for listening!!!

Teresa

In the current proposals for creating Roth-type 401(k) plans, are federal employees included? If the proposed legislation creates these plans for all workers except for federal workers, who can be contacted about fixing that?

Can a Money Purchase Plan allow for In-Service Withdrawals? If so, can it be withdrawn before age 59 1/2?

Is a hardship withdrawal or hardship distribution from vested match an eligible rollover distribution?

It is clear to me that a hardhip distribution taken from the employee deferral source is no longer an eligible rollover distribution. I am not clear about whether or not hardship distributions taken under Rev. Rul. 71-224 from non-employee deferral sources are or are not eligible rollover distributions. (Does Rev. Rul. 71-224 allow distributions due to hardship from vested match, or just from profit sharing?)

The language in the document I am working with is:

"Upon at least 30 days' written notice to the plan administrator, a participant may make a withdrawal of all or any portion of his salary reduction account or the vested portion of his matching account at any time after he has attained age 59 1/2 or in the event of hardship, provided that any hardship withdrawal from a participant's salary reduction account shall not include earnings accrued after 1988."

Am I correct that, when Plan A is merged into Plan B, all participants that had been reported on past Schedule SSAs for Plan A (and have not yet been paid or forfeited) should be reported on the Schedule SSA for Plan A in the year of merger as Code C?

If one of our 457 members receives a hardship withdrawal from a 403(B), must we stop his deferral to our 457 plan?

At one time we were part of a university, however, when we split away, we froze our employees' participation in the university's 403(b)and began our 457 plan.

One of our employees has applied for a hardship withdrawal from the 403(B) but not from the 457. (1) He has more funds in the 403(B) and (2) his request meets the 403(B) hardship withdrawal guidelines but not the more restrictive 457 guidelines.

If he were to be approved for a 457 emergency hardship withdrawal, we would stop his current deferrals. But, we cannot find any information on whether a similar withdrawal (from another plan) would have the same requirement.

Are we required to stop his current deferrals.

Assume a pension plan satisfies the QJSA component of the

QJSA/QPSA rules by providing the following benefit forms:

(1) an annuity for the life of the participant with a survivor annuity for the life of his spouse which is 50% of the amount of the annuity payable during the joint lives of the participant and spouse (the "normal form of benefit");

(2) an annuity for the life of the participant with a survivor annuity for the life of his spouse which is 60% of the amount of the annuity payable during the joint lives of the participant and spouse;

(3) an annuity for the life of the participant with a survivor annuity for the life of his spouse which is 70% of the amount of the annuity payable during the joint lives of the participant and spouse; and

(4) a lump sum distribution which is actuarially equivalent to the normal form of benefit.

As I read the final regulations under 411(d)(6) which were

issued last week, the plan could be amended to eliminate,

for example, all benefit options except (1) and not violate

the Code's anticutback rule. Alternatively, the plan could be amended to eliminate (1), (2), and (4), without violating the anticutback rule. Is it true that any combination of optional benefit forms may now be eliminated so long as the plan retains one benefit form that satisfies the QJSA rule?

Assume a pension plan satisfies the QJSA component of the

QJSA/QPSA rules by providing the following benefit forms:

(1) an annuity for the life of the participant with a survivor annuity for the life of his spouse which is 50% of the amount of the annuity payable during the joint lives of the participant and spouse (the "normal form of benefit");

(2) an annuity for the life of the participant with a survivor annuity for the life of his spouse which is 60% of the amount of the annuity payable during the joint lives of the participant and spouse;

(3) an annuity for the life of the participant with a survivor annuity for the life of his spouse which is 70% of the amount of the annuity payable during the joint lives of the participant and spouse; and

(4) a lump sum distribution which is actuarially equivalent to the normal form of benefit.

As I read the final regulations under 411(d)(6) which were

issued last week, the plan could be amended to eliminate,

for example, all benefit options except (1) and not violate

the Code's anticutback rule. Alternatively, the plan could be amended to eliminate (1), (2), and (4), without violating the anticutback rule. Is it true that any combination of optional benefit forms may now be eliminated so long as the plan retains one benefit form that satisfies the QJSA rule?