Situation:

One plan (401(k) & P/S) with one plan sponsor and 3 participating employers (all controlled group members). Each participating employer has the right to pick P/S amount or percent for their own employees each year. Plan is top heavy. For the 1999 calendar year P/S is as follows:

Sponsor - 5%

Part Employer #1 -4%

Part Employer #2 - 6%

Part Employer #3 - Top Heavy minimum only

I know that for 410(B) and 401(a)(4) purposes, all employees in the controlled group must be included, but here is my question. When testing for 70% coverage for Part Employer #2 can I include the allocations that all other companies made even though they are less than the 6% or do the other employees show as not benefitting since they didn't receive the same 6%? On the flip side, when testing for Part Employer #1 can I inluced the other allocations even though they are more than 4%? How do top heavy minimums come into play?

Alot of maybe dumb questions but any help would be apprecieated

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

During 2000, a client of mine discovered that the incorrect deferral percentage (10% rather than 3%) was used to calculate employee contributions. In addition, the employer match exceeded the 3% of compensation base. The plan is now overfunded. I am unable to find a straight forward answer as to how this should be corrected. Does anyone have thoughts on this issue? Any citations would be appreciated.

In addition, one employee has left and taken his "overfunding" with him. How probable is it that the employer can get the funds back?

If a non-key employee becomes employed and at the same time immediately becomes a participant in a top-heavy plan mid-year, what compensation is used to determine that non-key employee's top-heavy minimimum contribution? His/her compensation only from the date of hire/entry?

A client of mine is the on the receiving end of a substanital increase in health insurance premiums (effective 4/1/00). They are considering the removal of their prescription card benefit under their coverage to help offset the increase. They would like to allow the folks in their 125 plan (YE =12/31) to change their medical reimbursement elections ASAP to help defray the financial impact of the above action. I do not believe the above qualifies as an allowable mid-year change to the medical reimbursement portion of the 125 plan. Does anyone have a thought on this matter? If it is allowable, could I have a citation?

What has to be done (tax, penalties, etc) if an employer was withholding employee deferrals but never made the deposit into each acct and now wants to do a lump sum deposit upon "discovering mistake"? I know they have to make the deposit and include earnings but do they notify IRS and what fees and penalties will apply? ANy info would be appreciated.

If an employee separates following more than 15 years of service with a qualifies employer what rules apply to the amount of 403-B contribution that may be made in that final year (note: there is no employer contribution).

I have recently heard from a reputable mutual fund company representative that an individual cannot establish a Substantially Equal Periodic Payment prior to age 45. Does anyone have any further information regarding this -- either substatiating or refuting this?

I currently have an Traditional IRA (rolled over from a 401K, no comingled funds in this account), a roth IRA and my wife is about to leave her job to become a stay at home Mom. I would like to convert the IRA and my wife's 401K to Roth IRAs. I do not think I can afford the tax bite of converting my wife's 401K AND the IRA. My questions are as follows:

Can I convert portions of the IRA and 401K to a Roth IRA to spread the tax bite out over several years?

Can I ultimately merge all of these into ONE Roth IRA?

Can I invest the ROTH funds in equities as well as managed funds?

It is also my understanding that I cannot rolla 401K directly to a Roth, is that correct?

thanks in advance for any help.

Joe

Am I correct in my reading of Notice 2000-3 that a 401(k) plan with an existing match cannot be amended after May 1, 2000 to provide a safe harbor match for this year? And that to make a 401(k) plan with an existing match a safe harbor plan (for 2000) after that date, you must use the 3% nonelective contribution?

I've been running into this a lot lately. Smaller and not so small employers either pay their employees Individual plan bills or give them cash to pay their monthly individual plan premium, say for the employee rate only. I know this has payroll tax and other consequences for the employer.Does anyone have any experience with these problems or any technical information? THANKS!! email is fine.

The plan documents should state which contributions get limited first. THe 25% 415 limit still applies in any case.

The plan documents should state which contributions get limited first. THe 25% 415 limit still applies in any case.

For everyone who knows me from this board, and has my e-mail, etc., information in their Rolodexes, please note that an update is in order. (I've already updated the information on the board--this is an issue only if you're keeping a card on me somewhere else.) I just started my own law firm, Calhoun Law Group, P.C. New e-mail address is cvcalhoun@benefitsattorney.com . Other contact information can be found by clicking here.

I'm very excited about being on my own (well, if you don't count the 7 attorneys in Sanders, Schnabel & Brandenburg, P.C., with which my firm has a mutual of counsel arrangement). But for those who have expressed concerns, my employee benefits site will be continuing as always.

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

Employee benefits legal resource site

[This message has been edited by CVCalhoun (edited 03-03-2000).]

[This message has been edited by CVCalhoun (edited 03-03-2000).]

To back up one sec - does the money purchase plan allocate forfeitures among other employees' accounts, or apply them towards the employer's money purchase contribution?

Congratulations, and good luck!

(From one sole prop to another.)

PS - I still have more messages posted than you do. Nyah nyah.

[This message has been edited by Dave Baker (edited 03-03-2000).]

Assuming the plan year is a calendar year. A plan participant was a 5% owner on 3/99. On 5/99 his company was sold and he was no longer a 5% owner. The former 5% owner turned age 70.5 after 5/99. He continues working and wants to defer receiving minimum distributions.

Is this person a 5% owner "with respect to" the 1999 plan year? If he is, then he must begin receiving distributions by April 1 of 2000. However, he was not a 5% owner at the time he turned 70.5 or subsequent. I think the correct answer is he cannot defer receipt of minimum distributions, but I could not find an answer in the regs, notices or committee reports which confirmed that. Any thoughts? Thanks.

We issued two 1099's with incorrect distribution amounts. After we issue corrected 1099's, I'm unsure about what to do about the 1096 that was filed with an incorrect total.

Do I file a corrected 1096 that has a new corrected total, that includes all distributions, not just those that were corrected? Or do I show on the corrected 1096 just the total of the two corrected 1099's? Also, the Form 1096 does not have a box to mark showing that it is a correction. Do I write "correction" on the Form 1096 or what?

The two incorrect 1099's had no withholding, so the 945 does not need to be corrected. Is there anything else other than issuing corrected 1099's and 1096 that I should do.

[This message has been edited by Richard Anderson (edited 03-21-2000).]

Can an employer (a partnership) establish a minimum age of 25 for participantion in a medical reimbursement plan? A 1,000 minimum hour requirement? Thanks.

Dr. is an employee of his own incorporated medical practice. He is also an empoyee of the local hospital and participantes in the hospital's TSA program. Does Dr.'s TSA contribution affect his 415 limit under his practice's PS Plan?

I know it used to (at least we ran the Plan as if it did!) - but with all of the recent changes, I'm just not certain anymore. Any and all input and cites welcome and appreciated!

This is a subject that has been discussed a few times before, and I’m wondering if anyone knows of anything new and what people have been doing in practice. If anyone is going to the 2000 EA meeting, could you follow up on this? The previous threads on the topic have pointed to:

The 99 EA Gray Book.

"QUESTION #30

Other DC Issues: Application of Maximum Compensation Limit

In a 401(k) plan, does IRC Section 401(a) (17) preclude the following?

A. Employee A earns $300,000 annually. He enrolls in 401(k) calendar year plan in August, after earning $175,000. He defers $10,000 for the balance of the year.

B. Employee A earns $300,000 annually. He participates in a calendar year 401(k) plan making monthly deferrals of a flat dollar amount of 1/12 of $10,000 in 1998, even though his pay exceeded $160,000 before he was done making elective deferrals.

C. Same as B, but deferrals are a percentage of pay (3.33333%).

RESPONSE

All of the above are acceptable, assuming the plan is not drafted in such a way as to prevent it.

In situation C, for example, a plan provision permitting deferrals expressed as a percentage of compensation but not permitting deferrals expressed as a dollar amount could not accommodate deferrals on pay in excess of $160,000. Where the plan permits deferrals expressed as a dollar amount specified in the employee's salary reduction agreement, the reference to a percentage in the individual agreement is irrelevant."

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

Assume a plan document permits deferrals of up to 15% of compensation and does not mention allowing deferrals of specific dollar amounts. Does the response above mean that, for this plan document, the Employee in Situation A may not make deferrals, and the Employee in Situations B and C is limited to $5,333.33 (3.33333% times $160,000)?

Does anyone have a plan document that has a provision allowing deferrals of a specific dollar amount per period? The response seems to indicate that a provision like that in the plan document makes Situations A, B and C o.k., even if the actual election form states a percentage of compensation. If the plan document has a provision like this, does this make it possible for the Employee in Situation A to receive a matching contribution? Would the answer be different depending on whether the match was based on deferrals (50% match, for example), or compensation (50% of the first 6% of pay deferred)?