What mortality table shoudl be used to take into consideration mortality for nonaccount balance plans when determining the current amount for FICA? The 31.3121(v)(2) reg refers to the 415(e) mortality table, which refers to 807(d)(5)(A), which states "the prevailing commissioners standard tables.

I went to the Society of Actuaries and downloaded thier tables for annuities. None of these consider joint lives, but are all single tables. All the examples in the reg refer to single life tables. (1984-UP, 1983 GAM) Do you count single life only as the survivor benefit is nonemployee compensation???

At first thought, I looked at the QJSA Table VI under IRC 72. My joint lives give me an expectancy of 23 years. The plan provides for a payment period of 15 years with a survivor benefit if the participant dies before the 15 years. If they both die prior to 15 years, payments stop. But, it seems they should get some consideration for mortality assumptions.

Has anyone done this calculation for a joint life benefit? What mortality table should be used? Any help is greatly appriciated?

[This message has been edited by Dawn Hafner (edited 08-16-1999).]

In simple terms, could someone help explain to me the differences between 401(k) transfers and rollovers. When would an individual use one over the other?

"Final Avg Earnings" means avg monthly amt of Compensation during 3 consecutive yrs, within the last 10 calendar yrs prior to termination, which shall produce the highest avg.

Participant works from 1977 till 9/1/97.

What period can be considered in determining avg pay?

A privately held company serves as its own 401(k) Trustee (and Custodian) and wants to offer its stock as an investment option for participants. In order to accomplish this, they have elected to allow participants to self-direct to any investment (stocks, bonds, etc. Theoretically, one of which may be company stock). Their belief is because employees can buy any stock, they can offer their own. But, as a very closely held stock, shares will not generally be available to just anybody (shares would have to be purchased from an existing owner without the involvement of a broker - treasury shares would not be made available). Is there a problem with this? In particular, because employees are technically able to purchase company stock (though in reality will not have the opportunity), is the company covered w/ regard to ERISA? Particularly, if it results in only HCEs having the opportunity to purchase company stock?

Short term disability or sick pay are generally treated as mere payroll practices not subject to ERISA. But if an employer wants ERISA coverage to avoid state mandated benefits, it can set up a trust and Plan Documents. Does anyone have experience with this ? How much hassle to handle the reporting requirements? Must checks be cut seperate from payroll or could the plan reimburse or prefund the employer's payroll check ?

An "underfunded" DB plan is terminated and lump sums are paid and a Single Premium Annuity is purchased to provide the immediate and deferred benefits for those who didn't elect lump sums.

The Sponsor deposits $5 Mil. to cover the additional money needed to cover all the payments (lump sums & contract). This contribution was deducted.

It's now 2 years later and the annuity contract is just getting settled and low and behold the Sponsor actually gets a refund, ($50K).

Is this considered a reversion? Are there any corp. tax implications?

Has anyone converted to 5.0? If so were you able to convert your Crystal Reports? Where there any other major problems with the conversion?

say a plan makes a mistake in a participant's pension. Is there a statute of limitations to protect the plan sponsor? I have thought that it might be 6 years, since my understanding is that a plan need keep participant records for 6 years. Anyone have any comments or knowledge in this area?

My understanding is that current regs provide that if a plan does not provide notice of suspension of benefits, then they must provide for the greater of the actual accrued benefit at late ret. or the act. equiv. of such ben. Any other thoughts?

For anyone who is interested, I now have a summary of the recently passed tax bill at my site. Although Clinton is almost certain to veto the bill, the bulk of the benefits provisions are likely to reappear in whatever tax legislation is passed this year.

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

Employee benefits legal resource site

For anyone who is interested, I now have a summary of the recently passed tax bill at my site. Although Clinton is almost certain to veto the bill, the bulk of the benefits provisions are likely to reappear in whatever tax legislation is passed this year.

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

Employee benefits legal resource site

Deceased 401(K) participant listed beneficiaries as #2 minor children (under 10 years old). The company sponsor has been approached by a person claiming to be the mother of the beneficiaries. What verification of guardianship for these #2 beneficiaries should the company request to sign off on and forward the distribution request? The deceased participant had been divorced for many years before joining the company & the plan (i.e. no person can really verify if these are the children named, or their legal guardian).

Can you claim Electrostatic Air Filters ($150.00)for an air conditioner for acute allergies as a reimbursable expense on your 125 account? Could this be classified as a capital expense?

Thank you for your imput.

This is more of an accountant question, but does anyone know if employee elective deferral amounts are deducted on Line 19 on the Schedule C since they are considered employer contributions for deduction purposes or are they considered part of the wages line on the Schedule C. Any help, particularly with cites would be appreciated. Thanks.

Do you provide medical benefits for part- time employees? If so, what is the criteria for being eligible (i.e. minimum number of hours worked, etc.) and what premiums are charged (i.e. same as full-time employees). Lastly, what was the incentive to offer these benefits (i.e. competitive reasons, large part-time population,etc.)

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

What are the most frequent methods of providing a plan to make those affected "whole"? Non-qualified lump sum payment at retirement? Annual cash out?, etc. Will the limit be increasing in 2000?

Thanks.

I'm dealing with a plan that did not make RMDs for 1996 and 1997 to two employees who attained age 701/2 in those years. Because of changes made by SBJPA, employees who are still working and aren't 5% owners are not required to take distributions. However, according to the IRS, a plan cannot take away the option to take a distribution at age 701/2 because it is a protected benefit. The Irs published Notice 97-70 which gave employers until December 31, 1997 to offer employees an election to defer. Our employer did not provide the election until December 28, 1998. (Both employees opted to defer).

I originally thought that this was a failure to make a RMD subject to excise tax and so on. However, upon furthere analysis, these employees were not required to take distributions under 401(a)(9) because they were still employed. The failure was that the plan did not follow its own terms and make distributions when the employees turned age 701/2. Do you agree with that analysis?

if so, would the proper correction be to make the required minimum distributions for the 1996 and 1997 years based on the terms of the plan? Would earnings need to be calculated and added into the minimum distributions?

First, I would like to thank Noel for his outline on required minimum distributions (RMDs). I spent part of the weekend studying the outline and I think I have a handle on the calculation.

Unfortunately I'm dealing with a plan that did not make RMDs for 1996 and 1997 to two employees who attained age 701/2 in those years. Because of changes made by SBJPA, employees who are still working and aren't 5% owners are not required to take distributions. However, according to the IRS, a plan cannot take away the option to take a distribution at age 701/2 because it is a protected benefit. The Irs published Notice 97-70 which gave employers until December 31, 1997 to offer employees an election to defer. Our employer did not provide the election until December 28, 1998. (Both opted to defer).

I originally thought that this was a failure to make a RMD subject to excise tax and so on. However, upon furthere analysis, these employees were not required to take distributions under 401(a)(9) because they were still employed. The failure was that the plan did not follow its own terms and make distributions when the employees turned age 701/2. Do you agree with that analysis?

if so, would the proper correction be to make the required minimum distributions for the 1996 and 1997 years based on the terms of the plan? Would earnings need to be calculated and added into the minimum distributions?

Kurt

50yr old, divorced, 700K in property, 300K in investments, 101K in Roth, 3K/mo in child support. All $'s as property settlement so no taxes on them. no other income. Should I be in a Roth?

Can anyone tell me, either from personal experience or from national statistics, at what rate 401(k)plans fail the ADP/ACP tests?

Thanks.