I received a short printed summary regarding comments made by Robert Doyle w/DoL. The comments related to audit requirements for plans with less than 100 participants. A possible exemption may exist for corporate trustee'd plans. I am looking for additional information.

My company has many non-US citizens working in the US and many US citizens working overseas. Non-US citizens returning to or transferring to another unit/office of the same company are generally not considered to have a 'separation of service' event. Therefore, a final or total distribution is most likely not possible.

As far as I know, direct rollovers to an account outside the US is not permitted (the IRS ultimately wants to get it's cut).

In our plan, an employee returning to his 'home' country is not considered terminated for plan purposes. While he/she cannot contribute additional amounts or take loans (because they are no longer on the payroll), we do allow them to take in-service withdrawals and to re-balance their account.

When they ultimately terminate or retire the final distribution options can occur. As you can imagine the tax laws vary greatly from country-to-country and are often guided by an existing tax treaty.

Are there any laws requiring companies to pay benefits.

medical,dental,retirement,401k etc.

The client is indicating that they want to administer the change as follows:

If you have more than 2 years of service regardless of whether you have reached 5 years or not, you will be vested in old money and new money and therefore not subject to the new 5 year cliff.

If you have less than 2 years, you will not be grandfathered and all of your prior and future contributions will be subject to the new 5 year cliff vesting schedule.

I agree that there is definitely an anti-cutback issue to consider. The client is indicating that there is a "loophole" that exempts them from grandfathering because their old vesting schedule was less than 3 years. Has anyone ever heard of this? Any thoughts?

What was the law/regulation/IRS Notice or other that allows pension plans to pay lump sums with a 7 day waiting period rather than forcing the employee to wait 30 days?

(I understand the plan doesn't have to be amended to provide for the 7-day waiting period until the end of the remedial amendment period. But, it can be operated with the 7-day wait if appropriate notice is provided.)

What is the content of the waiver notice that the plan must give the employee (and spouse, if applicable) to take advantage of the 7 day wait? Is this content in electronic format?

A company has a profit sharing plan that allows in service distributions. There are 3 participants in the plan.

An employee under age 59-1/2 (who happens to be the owner) took an in service distribution and rolls it into an IRA.

Shortly thereafter (within the same year), the profit sharing plan was terminated. He took his remaining distribution and rolled it into an IRA.

Were both distributions in fact eligible to be rolled over?

I am interested in anyones opinion regarding the impact the decision in this case will have on business, regardless of the outcome.

Looking for opinions, legal or otherwise, regarding the impact of the forthcoming ruling in this case. What are the implications and ramifications to business?

What reactions might be expected in response either way the case is decided?

This may be more of a 404© issue, but here goes: Can an employer require that elective deferrals be invested in Company Stock in order to be matched?

If a rehire repays his benefit distribution in the same year as the distribution is a 1099-R required at all? if so how do you treat his repayment? What if the repayment occurs in a subsequent year?

We administer two retirement plans for a company. One plan is for union employees and the other is for non-union employees. Two union employees became non-union employees in 1998. The employer would very much like to transfer their account balances to the non-union plan where they now participate. Would a board resolution authorizing the transfer of assets and liabilities for these two people be sufficient? Also, would this transfer of assets and liabilities necessitate the filing of a 5310-A Form for each plan? The penalty for not filing this form is $25 per day so I need to be sure about this one.

Thanks for your help.

Do you know of any court decisions on whether a contract retroactively integrating a local government retirement plan into a state retirement system can reduce or impair the benefits of current employees under the local plan? Our state statute governing integration states that benefits of retired employees may not be reduced or impaired in the integration, creating an implication that benefits of current employees may be reduced and impaired.

My plan requires excess aggregate forfeitures to be used to reduce employer contributions.

I am looking for suggestions on how to handle this without violating regulations regardings assets held in trust.

Basically, this is the issue: can a check be cut to the Trustee FBO of the plan. The trustee deposits the check into an account that is used only to pay employer contributions.

OR, must the forfeitures stay in the trust, and be reduced by future employer contributions requirements until depleted.

Just wondering how other people might be handling this.

Can three months of service be required before an otherwise eligible employee is able to make employee deferrals? If not, is this a disqualification issue (Note: 1 year of service is required for employer match - further note: this message also posted on the gov't plan board)?

Many of you may have wondered why your message has ended up with a little note at the bottom saying, "This message was edited by CVCalhoun," and whether anything you may have said might have been distorted by the editing. Although as moderator of this board, I have the ability to edit any message, I try very hard to avoid changing the meaning of anyone's message. So, just for general information, the following are my standards for editing:

1. I never edit a message for substance. If I feel like a message violates the standards of this board (e.g., if it advertises a Ponzi scheme which has nothing to do with employee benefits, or attacks another writer), I will remove it entirely, but I will not edit it. I suppose that if I found a part of an otherwise useful message to be objectionable, I might delete the whole message but send a copy back to the original writer suggesting a rewrite, but so far, that hasn't happened.

2. I will edit a topic heading, either for typos, or because the topic has drifted into a more general discussion than its original heading might have suggested. (I don't edit specific messages for typos, but I do like people at least to know what each topic as a whole is about.)

3. I will edit specific messages to insert links to articles, cases, or statutory provisions referenced in them, when I believe that the link may contribute to understanding what the message is about.

4. I will edit specific messages when the peculiarities of this board cause a message to get garbled. For example, if you use a % sign on this board, neither it nor the rest of the paragraph in which it appears will show on the board. Instead, you have to use %, which will insert the % sign into the message. If someone does not know that (which I consider quite understandable!), I would edit the person's message to put it back the way the person originally intended it.

And that's all the editing I do. If you want to know why your personal message got edited, feel free to e-mail me. My e-mail is ccalhoun@cwlaw.com

Many of you may have wondered why your message has ended up with a little note at the bottom saying, "This message was edited by CVCalhoun," and whether anything you may have said might have been distorted by the editing. Although as moderator of this board, I have the ability to edit any message, I try very hard to avoid changing the meaning of anyone's message. So, just for general information, the following are my standards for editing:

1. I never edit a message for substance. If I feel like a message violates the standards of this board (e.g., if it advertises a Ponzi scheme which has nothing to do with employee benefits, or attacks another writer), I will remove it entirely, but I will not edit it. I suppose that if I found a part of an otherwise useful message to be objectionable, I might delete the whole message but send a copy back to the original writer suggesting a rewrite, but so far, that hasn't happened.

2. I will edit a topic heading, either for typos, or because the topic has drifted into a more general discussion than its original heading might have suggested. (I don't edit specific messages for typos, but I do like people at least to know what each topic as a whole is about.)

3. I will edit specific messages to insert links to articles, cases, or statutory provisions referenced in them, when I believe that the link may contribute to understanding what the message is about.

4. I will edit specific messages when the peculiarities of this board cause a message to get garbled. For example, if you use a % sign on this board, neither it nor the rest of the paragraph in which it appears will show on the board. Instead, you have to use %, which will insert the % sign into the message. If someone does not know that (which I consider quite understandable!), I would edit the person's message to put it back the way the person originally intended it.

And that's all the editing I do. If you want to know why your personal message got edited, feel free to e-mail me. My e-mail is ccalhoun@cwlaw.com

[Note: This message was edited by CVCalhoun]

I am currently preparing a Private Letter Ruling regarding income of a trader of options, futures and other short term stock gains as being viable compensation for pension purposes. Any information that you have to that effect would be greatly appreciated.

Does anyone have a draft of a notice they can share with our readers?

For the free offer e- mail us at:

moreinfo4u@mailexcite.com

Also cafeteria plans(POP)only at NO charge

AVAILABLE IN CALIFORNIA ONLY

[This message has been edited by Sathi Rajadurai (edited 11-20-98).]

Is the universal eligibility provision of Section 403(B)(12) applicable to 403(B) plans sponsored public schools? At an IRS EP/EO council, someone seemed to mention that it did not apply to governmental agencies/public schools. Is that what 403(B)(12)© is talking about?

[This message has been edited by derek (edited 11-09-98).]