four01kman

If the employees are on the payroll of the leasing company, aren't they employees of the leasing company? If so, then there has been a distributable event. If they are not employees of the leasing company, whose employees are they? Certainly not the "employer", I believe the leasing company fulfills all the necessary aspects of being the employer.

Wait a minute Austin. Why is there no "break in service"? Why can't you terminate the plan? The leasing company isn't a member of the controlled group of the employer. At least, you didn't say it was. There doesn't appear to be any reason you can't terminate the plan and transfer assets to the leasing company's plan.

As I read the proposed regulations, only preparers of personal tax returns will be required to get the identification numbers, not preparers of the Forms 5500.

My take is since the employer is the Plan Administrator (usually), the failure to timely file would no longer be a plan expense, but a settlor expense. The Plan (and the participants) could not have filed timely.

Is this before or after he is asked to open the pod bay door?

"5500 and SF were officially released some time ago and 2009 forms are being processed. We have not done any. " The forms are up on the DOL web site and I have done 3 directly and they have been processed successfully.

You can log on to the DOL web site (efast) and see both the 5500 and 5500-SF forms which have to be filed electronically. You file the 5500-SF in lieu of the 5500 EZ

I feel a little stupid asking this question. A US citizen working for a US subsidiary of a non-US company is transferring to a UK subsidiary of the same corporation. Can this be treated as a termination of employment for purposes of the US 401k plan?

A spokesman for the Obama Administration today indicated there would be no decrease (or increase) in the COLA limits for 2010. Further, that the IRS would be issuing something later this week.

Or would a lawyer be right to tell this business that implementing its purpose means paying for a custom plan document? This seems to be the right answer for me.

If a retirement plan is adopted pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a), it is automatically covered by ERISA unless specifically exempted.

My recollection of Primerica is that of an insurance company, not an investment advisor. A particular representative may be able to render investment advice, if they are appropriately registered.

A senior management employee and his (her) employer entered into an agreement regarding retirement benefits. The provision covering retirement benefits was part of the overall agreement. Would the retirement benefits portion of the agreement generally be covered under ERISA?

In a multiemployer plan, the plan sponsor ususally is the Joint Board of Trustees. HCE status therefore generally is determined by compensation within the bargained unit. So the answer to question 2, would be the total from both employers. I have been the consultant to a collectively bargained 401k Plan for over 10 years. None of the participants owns any of the businesses that are participating employers and none of the members have (or had) total compensation that would have made them HCEs.

Wouldn't the normal ERISA pre-emption rules apply?

Try Neil Neubarth, P. O. Box 70636, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33307-0636, (954) 491-126.

It sounds to me that it might be a settlor function that can't be paid for by the Plan. Distributions are based on Plan provisions that are established by the Plan Sponsor. I seem to recall a ruling (must be by the DOL) a while back talking about whether a Plan participant may be charged for a "regular" distribution, and the sense was the participant could not be so charged. (sorry I don't have a cite, just my recollection)

Just to clarify, the deposit must be made into the Plan's account, not necessarily the employee's account.

Knowing nothing about jockeys, other than they ride horses, why would they have to be treated differently than members of any other association that maintains pension, profit sharing, etc. plans. For example, either the PGA or the USGA (I'm not sure which) maintains a pension plan for professional golfers. The benefits are accrued annually, based on a minimum number of tournaments played that year. This sounds awfully similar to what you have been told about the jockeys. Ride 'em cowboy.

"Doc says distributions are as soon as administratively feasible after the next valuation date." By changing to an annual valuation date and distributing thereafter, it seems you are doing nothing more than following the terms of the document. The law requires distributions no later than the occurrence of certain events, none of which have anything to do with the current valuation date, and I do not believe a distribution after a particular valuation date would be a protected benefit.

Lori, The TPAs I work with prepare the blackout notice. As a financial advisor, I assist in the selection, monitoring and replacement of investment options. The TPAs generally work with the financial custodians (trustees) who actually do the financial transactions.

Just found this: Full Version: When is a loan in default? BenefitsLink Message Boards > Retirement Plans > 401(k) Plans DWARD Sep 13 2000, 10:38 AM Does the IRS or the DOL have any definitive regulations (guidance)for a Loan Default? Does a specific amount of time have to pass before the loan is in default? Is a Plan Administrator the only person who can deem a loan in default? Thanks to all who can give guidance on this issue. DSW MWeddell Sep 13 2000, 03:00 PM The promissory note or loan agreement when the loan was issued will state when a loan is in default. The DOL does not have any specific guidance. The IRS on 7/31/2000 issued final and proposed regulations under Code Section 72(p) on when a loan is deemed to be a distribution for tax purposes, which is similar to your question. Although plans may set stricter rules, the loan is treated as a taxable distribution when there's a whole calendar quarter with no payments. The first year of unpaid leave may be ignored and payments aren't required if the participant is on leave because of U.S. military duty. R. Butler Sep 13 2000, 03:18 PM I agree with MWeddell. Failure to make a payment when due in accordance with the terms of the loan is generally considred a default at the time of the missed payment. However, the plan administrator may allow a grace period, and the default will not occur until the last day of that grace period. The grace period cannot extend beyond the last day of the calendar quarter following the quarter in which the payment was due. You should start with the loan document and perhaps the loan agreement signed by the participant. Does the loan program or loan agreement provide a grace period? If it does use that grace period. If the document and/or agreement is silent then the plan administrator may use grace period set forth in IRS Reg. §1.72(p)-a,Q-10. I would reccomend defining the grace period in the loan document just to avoid confusion. Dave Baker Sep 14 2000, 02:16 AM The 2000 final regs are here: http://www.benefitslink.com/taxregs/72p-final.shtml card Apr 18 2001, 08:28 AM Additional question on this issue: What if the 5 year limit intervenes before the grace period ends? Which controls? That is, can the grace period be used to avoid the 5 year limit for immediate taxation of the outstanding balance? card MWeddell Apr 18 2001, 08:40 AM IRS regulations under Section 72(p) provide that the 5-year limit still applies even if loan payments weren't made due to a grace period (unless of course the the loan was for the participant's prinicipal residence so that the 5-year limit didn't apply in the first place).

Mr recollection of the rules is that a default occurs when the "loan procedures" say a default occurs. Prior to the DOl regulations, there was significant controversy over when a default occurred, and what happened in the event of a default. TRI Pension Services published "Defaults on Participant Loans" (in their Summer 1996 Newsletter - Issue #2); and then published "Loan Defaults And Loan Offsets Under The Final 72(p) Regulations" (in their Winter 2000/2001 Newsletter- Issue #20), suggesting to us the final rules came out after the "default" in question. For what its worth, in my practice, plans had adopted loan procedures which called for a default as of the first day of a calendar quarter, following two calendar quarters of non-payment.

I don't think performance differentials ever come into play in determining whether there is a failure to comply with Code Section 4 10(b) and 401(a)(4). The issue is one of discrimination from an IRS standpoint. It appears if "effective availability" is not met either because of "minimums" or just lack of usage by non-HCEs, the IRS could posit a discriminatory plan, with all the bad stuff that could then occur.

Practising Law Institute used to have a seminar called Understanding ERISA: An Introduction to Basic Employee Retirement Benefits. It provides a great amount of information in the areas you are looking to improve.