I have a DB plan which mailed its 6/30/99 contribution to the investment fund on 3/14/2000. The contribution was sent 2nd day, and therefore was not received by the investment fund until 3/16/2000. Was this deposited timely?

EMPLOYER HAS 2 DIFFERENT PLANS IN WHICH KEYS PARTICIPATE-- 401(k)COVERING ALL EMPLOYEES AND PS PLAN WHICH EXCLUDES A CERTAIN CLASS OF EMPLOYEES. PS PLAN IS TOP HEAVY BUT 401(k) WOULD NOT BE TOP HEAVY IF IT WAS NOT AGGREGATED. PLANS DO NOT NEED TO BE AGGREGATED FOR 410 OR 401(a)4).

EMPLOYER WANTS TO STOP MAKING THE TOP-HEAVY CONTIBUTION TO THE 401(k) FOR EMPLOYEES EXCLUDED FROM THE PS PLAN. CAN THIS BE DONE?

1) CANNOT TERMINATE 401(k) AND DISTRIBUTE ASSETS BECAUSE OF SUCCESSOR PLAN RULE.

2) IF YOU FREEZE THE 401(k) IT WOULD STILL HAVE KEYS WITH ACCOUNT BALANCES. WOULD THE 401(k) STILL BE PERPETUALLY AGGREGATED WITH THE PS PLAN SO THAT YOU WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE TO MAKE TOP HEAVY CONTRIBUTIONS "FOREVER" FOR NON-KEYS WHO HAVE ACCOUNTS IN THE 401(k)? COULD YOU MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT MANDATORY AGGREGATION STOPS AFTER 5 YEARS FOR FROZEN PLANS SINCE THERE IS NO ONGOING "PARTICIPATION?

3) IF YOU PROSPECTIVELY AMEND THE 401(k) PLAN FOR PARTICIPATION OF NON-KEYS ONLY YOU STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM IN 2 ABOVE. WOULD MANDATORY AGGREGATION STOP AFTER FIVE YEARS IN THIS SITUATION?

4) ANY IDEAS??--HOW ABOUT PROSPECTIVELY MAKING THE 401(k) PLAN FOR NON-KEYS ONLY AND "SPINNING OFF" THE 401(K) ACCOUNTS FOR THE KEYS OVER INTO THE PS PLAN?

It has recently been brought to my attention that under certain very limited circumstances, an individual in a SEP can be allocated more than $24,000 (15% X $160,000) for 1999. Supposedly, this is because individual compensation for purposes of the 15% limitation is not subject to the 401(a)(17) limit of $160,000. My question is whether for purposes of the integrated allocation of the contribution, the individual's compensation is limited to $160,000 or whether the individual's total compensation can be used? If so, the allocation would be further skewed to the HC. I am assuming that all of the other requirements relating to SEP's, including the deduction limit of 15% of total compensation are met. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

I have received a new 1099R from my former employer to correct an excess contribution to my 401K, which was directly rolled over in 1999. The excess was coded 8, which is then income to me in 1999. Upon notifying my brokerage firm of the need to make the correction, they too will file a 1099R for 2000 and classify the excess as code 8.

I should not have to pay federal income tax twice so which of the two (employer or brokerage firm) is incorrect in their coding? What should the code be? Thank you.

A 401(k) Plan is effective 1/1/99.

There is no service requirement for eligibility and each employee enters the Plan on the first day of the month following DOH.

The Plan has elected to use actual NHCE ADP for the first year and will use prior years ADP in the future.

In order to pass the tests for 1999, the Plan tests Statutory Exclusions (< 1 YOS) separately.

Question: For 2000, what is the NHCE ADP?

Is it the 1999 ADP for all NHCES or only those who were not excluded?

!We acquired business in Mexico City and we need a vendor to handle the separate benefits for the mexican citizens. Can anyone reccomend a vendor in Mexico City who can administer benefits and coordinate with the mexican government?

Does anyone know of benefit vendor in Mexico City? We have acquired business in Mexico City and must provide benefits which coordinate with Mexican law. We need health insurance, vision insurance, life insurance and disability.

I am looking for some excellent alternatives to the existing 403(B)(1) providers.

------------------

Is this rule out the window now, with the disappearance of the Form 5500 C/R? As I recall it was not a creature of statute (or regulation) simply a provision in the Form 5500 C/R Instructions.

------------------

One of the opportunities and challenges that coalitions have today is encourage its members to learn how to use health care data as a management tool in decision-making. Comparative hospital and physician specific data are now readily available to coalitions and its members. The challenge is getting the members to learn how to apply this new information to business decisions involving health care services. How does an employer know if they are getting value for their dollars ? What about an employers PPO agreement ? It has great discounts, but could comparative data show an employer that they are actually spending more an/or sacrificing quality by using their current PPO Hospital. These are just some of the issues associated with the need for employers to expand their knowledge and use of health care data. To that end, coalitions need to serve as an important facilitator in this process.

Jerry Custer

Heartland Healthcare Coalition

Employee A works past age 65, but continues receiving accruals. At age 68, her company is bought and her old company pension is frozen. The old and new company never provided a suspension of benefits notice. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether this employee should be getting an actuarial increase to her old plan frozen benefit for working beyond age 65 and not receiving a Suspension Notice?

A owns 85% of company X, 10% of Company Y and 60% of Company Z. There are no controlled group issues. Companies A and B pay A director's fees in excess of $100,000 and no comp. Company C pays him a salary. For deferral purposes, how many 415 limits does A have? Although all three companies are unrelated, I believe there are two limits: Company Z and the combined director's fees from Companies X and Y. Regarding X and Y, A's director's fees are reported on a 1099. I believe he is essentially and independent contractor with being a director his business. Is my reasoning correct?

Plan receives QMCSO requiring coverage of employee's child. Employee had waived coverage under plan. Can plan force employee to enroll as a condition to enrolling the child pursuant to the QMCSO? Or does the plan have to permit "child-only" enrollment?

Apparently there is a 1997 IRS general information letter someone obtained in a FOIA request stating that a FSA can reimburse the entire cost of orthodontic expenses paid "up front" even if all services have not been rendered. I know that the IRS can "diavow" this position, but does anyone know where I can get a copy of this letter?

I just opened a Roth IRA. My AGI is below 31,000. Can I deduct this from my 1999 tax return?

Company A in state 1 owns Company B in state 2. A single 401(k) plan document covers both companies. Currently, the plan offers multiple investment options with Mutual Fund Family ABC. Company A wants to Switch to Mutual Fund Family DEF. Company B wishes to stay with Mutual Fund Family ABC. Does anyone see any problems with this arrangement? Any fiduciary or 404© issues? Would splitting into two identical plans make a difference? Thanks.

I converted my Regular IRA to a Roth Conversion IRA in 1999 in the amount of $109,627. I have 1999 earned income of $92,818. My accountant says that I am now ineligable to contribute to a 1999 Regular Roth IRA, because I have gone over the income limit. Unfortunately I already funded the 1999 Reg. Roth IRA in 2/99. He says that I have to take it out and pay taxes on its earned income and 10% penalty because I am only 53 years old.

We have recently taken over a 401(k) plan where the accountant performed the ADP/ACP tests for 1997, 1998, and 1999. While reviewing the tests, it appears as though the excess contribution refunds were calculated using the pre-1997 method (reducing the HCEs with the highest deferral percentage).

The document has not been updated as of yet for the changes from the GUST amendments. Our question is whether the prior year testing refunds should be recalculated using the method proscribed by the Small Business Job Protection Act or if we can leave the tests the way they are. Could we then include in the GUST amendment that the plan did not elect to use the new correction method for those plan years?

Has anyone dealt with the question of whether a sign-on bonus is compensation under a qualified plan? The employer offers a sign-on bonus to potential employees but the bonus is not received until the person actually becomes an employee and performs services for the employer. In other word, the bonus is not received until the service is performed. Also there isn't an employment contract. It seems to me that this enouhg to bring this bonus under the definition of 414(s) compensation-remuneration for services performed. I have seen cases where a sign-on bonus is not compensation subject to FICA taxes-but these are all cases where some individual (such as a baseball player) gets a sign-on bonus and the bonus is received regardless of whether the individual ever performs the service. Any ideas?

I have three prospects that I spoke with late last year that now want to set up new comp plans. Based on the recent IRS review of these plans, would it be prudent to wait until we receive more guidance before setting these up? I am working with a TPA firm (I am a broker and definitely NOT an expert in these plans.) for these plans and they keep telling me that there will be no or limited changes and that I should go ahead and set up the plans. My understanding is that there has been no guidance on what will or will not be acceptable. Has the IRS given any time frame in which they will let us know what, if any, the changes will be? If it is important, all of the plans I have proposed allocate a minimum of 5% to all of the NHCEs and max out the HCE. Any and all information will be very helpful. Thank you!

------------------