I have a question regarding USERRA and wondered if anyone could help me out:

An individual has been in service with the uniformed services for 6 years. The individual is entitled to reemployment under USERRA even though he has been in service for more than 5 years, because the additional time was time required to complete an initial period of obligated service. Section 4312©(1). According to Section 4318(a)(2)(B), this individual is entitled to the accrual of benefits for the period of service in the uniformed services.

My question is whether the individual is entitled to 6 years of service for computing the accrual of benefits or 5 years? I ask this question because 4312© in effect pares back any time spent in service over 5 years to just 5 years. My opinion was that the individual is entitled to only 5 years of accrual benefits because 4318(a)(2)(B) specifically provides the individual with accrual benefits for a PERIOD SERVED upon reemployment under the chapter. In order to be reemployed under the chapter, Section 4312 required the individual to have SERVED A PERIOD of 5 years or less , or if greater, 4312© acted to pare back the total time spent in service to exactly 5 years. "Period of service" under 4312© is now equal to 5 years. Is this the period of service 4318(a)(2)(B) alludes to?

I appreciate any comments or thoughts. Thanks!

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

-SLT

Plan sponsor is giving one time choice to convert from DB to either a more portable pension equity plan (PEP) or an "enhanced" DB plan that has better early retirement subsidies. What considerations for transaction to take place? (204(h) notice? nondiscrimination testing?) Any good references for a checklist?

I've just received two separate reject letters from 5500EZ filing clients regarding a non-valid actuary enrollment number. In both cases I signed in April 1999(after receiving reenrollment confirmation in March) using the "99" prefix. Is anyone else getting these reject letters? I remember from past messages that the IRS was extending the validity of the "96" prefix through the end of April as they were late in sending out the confirmation letters, but I didn't expect that this would cause properly filed Sch Bs w/ the "99" prefix filed in April to be rejected. Any comments/suggestions (I've got a call into the IRS now).

Does anyone have suggestions of a trust company that is available to serve as directed trustee of a Roth-IRA that will invest in all of the original stock of a company founded by the Roth-IRA participant. The participant is prepared to deliver a law firm opinion that there is no prohibited transaction. The participant is willing to give the trust company any reasonable protection from liability for acting on the participant's instruction.

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

Does anyone have the cite to a fairly recent article I recall seeing in a tax publication, comparing the pros & cons of having a corporate trustee, versus self-trusteed retirement plan?

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

I am looking for information on flexible work options, ie job sharing - telecommuting - flextime - compressed work weeks

Richard - a couple of comments w/r to you response.

1) Isn't it true that the lump-sum based on the frozen benefit would change due to a change in interest rates and an increase in participant's age and could go up or down?

2)Isn't the accrued benefit based on the account balance at 65 (assume no early ret subsidy) converted to an annuity (of course grandfathering the frozen benefit)? As opposed to the frozen accrd benefit plus future account balance converted accruals? Or does it depend on the plan design?

3) And based only on the account balance, isn't it possible the lump sum could be greater than the account, due to 417(e) lump sum of accrued benefit?

Like to hear your thoughts

Gary

Bank A grants its employees stock options, plan does not have change of control agreement. Bank B purchases Bank A in a pooling purchase. Bank B does have a change of control agreement in their employee stock option plan. Bank C purchases Bank B, once again pooling purchase, and Bank B's employees are informed that their options immediately vest. Bank B tells original Bank A employees that there is a question as to whether their options will vest. Is this possible or is this discriminatory??

A company currently has a SEP IRA and would like to convert it to a Simple IRA. Does one simply terminate the SEP and then adopt a Simple IRA or is the process more involved? Also, if they have deposited contributions to the SEP IRA for the partners for the current fiscal year, wouldn't they have to deposit any contributions to newly eligible participants before terminating the SEP?

A client has an integrated MPP and a PS plan with a 6/30/99 FYE. The integrated MPP was merged into the PS as of 12/31/98, and the MPP was funded through 12/31/98 (no last day rule). Can the PS be amended to a cross-tested formula for FYE 6/30/99? I wasn't sure if the cross-tested PS plan falls into the same category as an integrated plan. I know you can't have two integrated plans in the same year.

If say a 45 year old person has a cash balance account of $100,000, is that what the lump sum would be if he terminated? Or do you have to project account to 65, convert to an annuity and then determine lump sum of the annuity? And if he wanted to receive an annuity at 65, would the account be credited with interest (based on current year rates) to age 65 and then converted to an annuity?

I am in the middle of researching this but wanted some thoughts. I hear of cases where an employee has an opening cash balance account that is less than their pvab from old plan and that they will not accrue for a long time. And that this happens to older employees. Is it simply due to different assumptions, such as a higher interest rate for cash bal conversion? And are there restrictions as to what assumptions are used for opening account conversions?

A large employer with a fully-insured plan has noticed a trend...employees with family coverage are covering their dependents and their spouse is also covering dependents on their employer's plan. In order to discourage their employees electing this "double coverage", they want to give employees a subsidy, say $100 a week to elect single coverage. Currently they pay around 67% of premiums for each employee, regardless of if single, employee + 1, or family coverage is elected. Can they do this? Is there any reg or law that we can present the employer to show why they can't?

What is the maximum statutory time frame to elect health coverage following a change in family status? What if the participant misses the deadline stipulated in the plan? How common are after tax contributions? What are the administrative concerns associated with them?

1. What is the most authoritative cite for including a loan in determining the AP's portion of a pension plan? (i.e. AP gets 50% of pension. Plan assets of P is made up of $50,000 loans, and $50,000 in mutual funds. AP gets $50K not $25K.)

2. May a QDRO call for the AP to get the benefit of an early retirement subsidy?

Can a plan participant take a loan from a plan that has terminated and is waiting on an IRS determination letter before distributing the plan assets? The plan allows for hardship distributions, but under normal circumstances, the loan would be the participants first option.

I’m hoping someone can help me out on a kind of technical question. I’m looking for an explanation of Tax Code section 401(a)(9)(F). The section states that "... any amount paid to a child shall be treated as if it had been paid to the surviving spouse if such amount will become payable to the surviving spouse upon such child reaching majority(or other designated event permitted under regulation)."

I think the intent of this section is to allow a surviving spouse/beneficiary to treat an inherited IRA as his or her own, even though a dependent child is scheduled to receive payments from the IRA after the IRA owners death and up until the child reaches majority (age 18??).

However, I can't find any tax regulations that talk about this section, or any other information from other publications. The closest I came was a footnote in a 1993 BNA publication that said the IRS hadn’t "provided any such other events, or otherwise promulagated regulations that elaborate upon this statutory provision."

Any thoughts or citations would be appreciated.

What are the proper procedures (legally and for tax purposes) for handling annuity benefits paid to a deceased annuitant, should payments made after the annuitant's death be returned to the insurance company and then distributed to the proper beneficiary or should the insurance company make the next scheduled payment to the proper beneficiary?

We would like to put in a safe harbor plan effective January 1, 2000. We currently have a dollar-for-dollar match of 4%, we allow immediate vesting, and we have both an after-tax and before-tax component for saving. We were told by legal counsel that the IRS has not make it clear that you can have a safe harbor plan with after-tax employee contributions (with employer match against these contributions). Is it correct that we cannot implement a safe harbor plan due to our matching after-tax contributions (as well as before-tax contributions).

It is my understanding that the IRS position is that receipt of ubti (whether or not it is offset by a deduction for a plan contribution)by a tax-exempt organization subjects the entire reversion to the Section 4980 excise tax. Has anyone been successful in contesting this position? Thanks

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