WDIK

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31153

The Form 5500 instructions indicate that the requirement for a large plan audit is based on the number of participants shown on line 6. The instructions further indicate that individuals who are eligible to defer are counted as participants.

pax: I seriously doubt that this thread will have anywhere near the number of replies that those listed above have.

1) Aver that DB plans are a scheme to enrich plan sponsors. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5997 2) Bring up tax law changes or IRS policy. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=18334 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=18329 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=13702 3) Mention anything about insurance commisions or 412(i) plans. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=27473 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31208 4) Harp on ethics or the lack thereof. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25810 5) Find creative ways to avoid taxes. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=3510 6) Discuss sports. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26212 7) Provide an opportunity for stress-relieving, innane babbling. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25886 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=23084

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29337

I am a simple-minded person and did not intend for my original post to be interpreted so broadly. By stating that the accounts were established pursuant to the applicable code sections and indicating in the title that they were 401(h) disbursements, I thought it was clear enough that such disbursements were for legitimate medical expenses. I thought that the point was emphasised by using the term medical benefit accounts. I thought that this point was further emphasised by referring to disbursements from other types of medical expense plans. I thought that the point was additionaly clarified by my second post. I apologize if the information was not sufficiently clear. I thank GBurns for the links, but they were not what I was looking for. The first was not on point for 401(h) disbursements, and the second only addressed the qualification of 401(h) accounts and not specifically the reporting requirements for distributions. It may seem obvious to others, but I had not been able to find anything that confirmed that reimbursement of medical expenses from a medical benefits account established under 401(h) was treated the same as medical expense reimbursements from other types of plans such as flexible spending arrangments or health savings accounts which are specifically mentioned in the instructions for Form 1099-MISC. (How was that for a run-on sentence?)

That was the initial clarification I was hoping for. As a follow-up, does that mean that such payments are also exempt from the reporting requirements of section 6041? (In other words, no 1099-MISC is required.)

Are distributions from a medical benefits account established in a qualified retiremnt plan pursuant to IRC Sections 401(h) and 420 treated the same as distributions from other health plans, such as a flexible spending arrangement or a health savings account?

I may be putting my foot in my mouth, but isn't it necessary to reach an appropriate statutory or plan threshold before a deferral can be characterized as a catchup contribution?

If the name change was the only oversight, I would think that there is enough other supporting documentation to show that a plan merger did occur.

I think that you are "leaning" in the right direction.

You might want to look at some prior discussions of this topic. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=29919 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25405

It seems to me a new election would be needed.

Oops! I guess I missed one. "Close quarters"

The only one left without an answer is "little big horn."

In general, if changes have beeen made in the information included in the SPD, an updated SPD must be furnished every five years.

From a theoretical standpoint, I agree with Effen that you would probably be ok. From a practical standpoint, having a NHCE over NRA helps make the case that the amendment is not discriminatory.

Are there any nonhighly compensated employees that are currently working beyond normal retirement age?

Certainly, but it might be better if you PM me.

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=128754,00.html (to download information only form) http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=141434,00.html (for information on ordering forms)

But of course!

Try to find the phrase illustrated by the pictures. Wordplay.doc

This prior discussion should help. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31108

I agree with both of your assertions.

Following is a list of 5500 Software I have used in the past and my biggest pet peeve(s) with each. Accudraft - Would not batch print extensions, working with multiple Schedules A. Datair - Fitting SAR on one page. DOS product - Went out of business. Relius - Rate of price increases. Typewriter - Liquid paper would curdle and/or smear. Overall - Having to reenter plan data every couple of years because we keep switching software. None of them seemed to catch all of my input errors, but I was fairly happy with Datair and Relius.