On or about November 24,2014, the IRS published, via Notice 2014-74, two (2) updated versions of the eligible rollover distribution notice, aka "IRC section 402(f) notices".

One of these notices was for Non Roth, and the other was Roth accounts.

Question:

Does anyone know where we can get a Spanish version of these two notices?

I quickly surveyed the major investment providers and some, eventually, produced a Spanish version of the (now) obsolete Notice 2009-68 notices, but I am looking for a Spanish version of the updated IRS Notice 2014-74 notices (402(f) notices), to complete my update of my distribution paperwork.

Thanks for any ideas!

The last paragraph of the article below states that the IRS has informally mentioned that the amount of cash opt-out payment under a cafeteria plan must be added to the monthly premium for single coverage to determine if the coverage is affordable. Has anyone else heard similar comments?

The Nov. 6, 2014 DOL Q & A's include an example which concludes that an employer's offer of cash or coverage to high risk employees did not comply with the market reforms. It included a discussion about how a high-risk individual must effectively contribute more to obtain coverage, since the employee is waiving the annual $10,000 opt-out payment and must pay $2,500 for coverage. But nowhere did the guidance suggest that the opt-out payment under a broad based cafeteria plan must be included for affordability purposes under 4980H.

http://www.healthcarereformdigest.com/new-aca-affordability-rules-impact-cafeteria-plan-flex-credits

I'm trying to determine if this scenario is a problem for a section 125 cafeteria plan.

Entity A (the larger employer and a state governmental entity) has a written section 125 cafeteria plan which includes a self-insured medical plan as one of its benefit options.

Entity B (the much smaller employer and a 501©(3) entity) is unrelated to A and has its own employees. The entities are not part of a controlled group, and would not be considered the same taxpayer under IRC section 125(g)(4). Entity B is not controlled by Entity A and has its own independent board of directors, which are not employees of Entity A.

A service contract exists between the entities. As long as Entity B continues to provide services to Entity A, Entity B's employees will be included as participants within Entity A's self-insured medical plan. Entity B has its own written section 125 cafeteria plan and its employees receive pre-tax benefits as a result. Entity A is effectively acting as Entity B's health insurance company and assumes risk in excess of the premium payments charged to Entity B.

Under these facts, are both entities' section 125 cafeteria plans at risk of failure from the IRS since Entity A is allowing coverage for participants other than its own employees? Or is the problem only an insurance company issue unrelated to the section 125 cafeteria plan? Thanks for any input.

We have a new client that adopted a 401k plan for 1/1/14. Due to the time it took for everything to get set up with the 401k investment provider, contributions didn't start until around 2/1/14.

Problem is that we just discovered for the month of January they continued to make contributions to their old SIMPLE IRA.

Can the client just do a corrective distribution from the SIMPLE IRA or pay an excise tax on a non-deductible contribution or do they have to go through VCP to get the matter resolved? It's not a lot of money.

I have a plan with a group of "traders" who are partners in a business. Their K-1 show a net employment income of, say, $10,000 (14 A).

There is investment income of over $1,000,000. I have read that income could be considered as earned income for plan purposes, even though it is not subject to SE tax.

Any thoughts and/or cites? The EOB search doesn't even register a hit with "trader".

Can a qualified plan document include an excess benefit plan formula/other language but there also be an accompanying separate excess benefit plan?

Assume that benefits will be paid properly with qualfied benefits paid from trust and excess benefits paid from general assets.

I've just never heard of this before! Thanks in advance.

We have a change in control plan where if there is a change in control followed by termination, the executives get a separation payment.

For 280G reasons, we want to reduce the separation payment and give the participants a bonus equal to the reduction in the separation payment. We anticipate a change in control next year. Is this OK, or does it constitute an impermissable acceleration?

Are there any 280G issues I"m missing?

I understand about forfeitures not being available to be used to fund QNEC or SH contributions. If an employer makes an overdeposit into a participant's account in error, I'm thinking those monies could be used to fund a QNEC or SH since they are not true forfeitures. Am I way off base?

Thanks

The plant went down with a crash. Died in the traces. A redefinition of ‘power failure.’ Technicians and managers went scampering all over the facility, tinkering, thunking, tampering and trying to coax things back to life. Nothing worked, and desperation reigned.
Finally the plant manager and the Chief Operating Officer admitted the solution was beyond the means and expertise of the staff. The needed a real expert—an outside consultant. So they placed a frantic call. The trouble-shooting ace said he’d pack his bag of miracles and be right there.
The pro arrived and hung up his coat. He looked the situation over. He squinted his eyes in a Clint Eastwood way, then he walked into the bowels of the plant. People watched respectfully, and some held their breaths.
The consultant pulled open the door of a little metal box on the side of a monstrous machine. He put out his hand, and with his right forefinger, he touched a button.
The plant sprang to life. Lights came on, machines hummed, systems resumed vigorous activity.
The plant manager shook his consultant’s hand. The CEO, overcome with relief, clapped him on the back. “This is wonderful,” he gushed. “What do we owe you?”
“Four thousand dollars,” replied the consultant.
“Four thousand dollars!” gasped the CEO. “All you did was walk over and push a little button on the side of that machine. Can you give us a breakdown?”
The consultant jotted on a piece of paper and handed it to the CEO.

“Pushing button: $1
Knowing which button to push: $3999″

“And if you’d known which button to push, you could have done the same thing.”
Sometimes you have to be willing to pay for what people know.

I am looking for a Third Party Administrator for a Personal Defined Benefit Plan (one owner-employee participant). Average fee seems to be $2000 for setup, $1500 for annual administration. Extras like distributions or loans typically carry their own fees. Providers typically ask for about a handful of parameters (basically current age, desired retirement age, current income, desired deduction), and come up with an automated written proposal, projections, etc., within seconds. Seems like a cookie cutter operation. With all due respect to the actuarial profession, and recognizing that annual actuarial valuation is needed, it would appear that with a large volume prototype plan and advancement of technology, basic economics would dictate this fee should come down to better reflect the "marginal cost of production". All calculations seem to be fully automated, and generic, based on only the few parameters mentioned above. Question: Is there any third party administrator geared towards owner-only plans that provides just that - a generic prototype document with the parameters filled in, no other marketing or sales gimmicks, preferably fully automated with little to no human interaction, at a more reasonable price?

Plan that offers a basic safe harbor match to all NHCE's wants to expand eligibility to allow a definitely determinable class of HCE's to participate (midyear).

I know midyear amendments to safe harbor plans are frowned upon, however, the same employees would be eligible both pre and post the amendment.

This employer just wants to provide additional benefits to a subset of it's HCEs (same as the basic match).

Can this be done? If not via a safe harbor contribution is there any alternative that can be done this year?

Thanks

Have a 15 participant 401(k) plan that is top heavy.

The plan sponsor has always wanted all employees to be eligible for the plan upon being hired. However, they recently hired an employee who will be a very highly paid HCE. This employee will have no company ownership.

The employee is currently eligible for the plan. Can they exclude this employee from participation prospectively? There will be no problems passing 401(a)(4) and 410(b).

Thanks.

Can someone discuss what may or may not be required for Cafeteria Plan to qualify as a Grandfathered Plan relative to a Health FSA within the Plan having to qualify as an Excepted Benefit; specifically the Availability Condition (requirement to offer Major Medical in addition to a Health FSA)?

What more might be needed than to document that the Cafeteria Plan was in existence on March 23, 2010 and make that clear to the participants?

Have come across several small employers who have offered a Cafeteria Plan for many years but cannot afford to offer Group Health and of course the Excepted Benefit requirement and Availability Condition now currently in effect.

Thanks

2 related corps each have fewer than 50 FT & FTEs for 2014 but collectively have more than 50 so they're ALEs for 2015.

We break the controlled group by changes in ownership this week.

Seems like they're still considered ALEs for all of 2015 (which as a practical matter just means they're required to issue the Forms 1095-C since they'll be "mid-size" for penalty purposes).

Anybody know of a way to make them not ALEs for 2015?

Thanks

Has this ever been legal?

If yes:

Any non-discrim testing?

Any change due to ACA?

OK to let each doctor choose pre-tax post-tax treatment (cafeteria benefit)?

Thanks

We have a client that has an adopting employer. The adopting employer will cease participation in the plan as of 12.31.2014. (Ownership will changed and no longer a controlled group).

The current plan is a definite safe harbor plan (3%) however the adopting employer does not want to fund it for their employees for 2014.

What are the repercussions for the plan if the adopting employer does not fund the safe harbor for their employees.

Even though the employer/plan sponsor will be funding it for their employees, it still puts the plan in jeopardy.

Has anyone had this situation? The adopting employer doesn't seem to care that the plan will be in jeopardy since they are going to be spinning off on to another plan starting 1/1/2015. Also because they have no association with the current employer going forward.

The actuaries and other math geeks will get a kick out of this.
http://www.tylervigen.com/

When does an employer notify an employee's dependent that the dependent's coverage will expire? Who gets the notification - the employee or dependent?

It is a self-funded plan.

Have a few DB plans that would like to increase benefits for most participants. If possible, they would like to execute the amendment before March 15, 2015 but have it effective as of 1/1/2014. Can this still be done?

Thanks.

If you have a new comparability profit sharing plan where each employee is in their own group. Can you provide an integrated allocation and not have to do the cross testing for the plan and only test the coverage? Are there any other issues or items to consider?