Effen

Again, you need to be specific. Are you trying to be 404© compliant? If so, than I think you need to give the prospectus directly to the participant. If not, you can do what ever you want with it. There are lots of Regulations and articles related to what needs to be provided and how. There are very few required communications where a simple posting is adequate. Are you a participant or a TPA?

I don't think it ever was acceptable for SARs or SMMs.

You probably should read the entire section, but this little snippett should give you the general idea. I think you would be ok, as long as everyone else is eligible. §1.401(a)(4)-5. Plan amendments and plan terminations (a) Introduction (1) Overview. --This paragraph (a) provides rules for determining whether the timing of a plan amendment or series of amendments has the effect of discriminating significantly in favor of HCEs or former HCEs. For purposes of this section, a plan amendment includes, for example, the establishment or termination of the plan, and any change in the benefits, rights, or features, benefit formulas, or allocation formulas under the plan. Paragraph (b) of this section sets forth additional requirements that must be satisfied in the case of a plan termination. (2) Facts-and-circumstances determination. --Whether the timing of a plan amendment or series of plan amendments has the effect of discriminating significantly in favor of HCEs or former HCEs is determined at the time the plan amendment first becomes effective for purposes of section 401(a), based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances. These include, for example, the relative numbers of current and former HCEs and NHCEs affected by the plan amendment, the relative length of service of current and former HCEs and NHCEs, the length of time the plan or plan provision being amended has been in effect, and the turnover of employees prior to the plan amendment. In addition, the relevant facts and circumstances include the relative accrued benefits of current and former HCEs and NHCEs before and after the plan amendment and any additional benefits provided to current and former HCEs and NHCEs under other plans (including plans of other employers, if relevant). In the case of a plan amendment that provides additional benefits based on an employee's service prior to the amendment, the relevant facts and circumstances also include the benefits that employees and former employees who do not benefit under the amendment would have received had the plan, as amended, been in effect throughout the period on which the additional benefits are based.

The board is fuly accessible to registered members. As a non-member. you will not be eligible to post.

How do you access your board? I didn't see anything obvious on your web site.

If you were going to calculate a lump sum distribution payable today, based on the 415 max. would you use 5.5% (assuming they will retroactively change it back) or the current 417(e) rate (recognize that the PFEA provisions have expired). This is more of a pole. I'm pretty sure the current law allows me to use the 417(e) limit, but does anyone see any potential problems using it? I guess I am worried about the potential of a future, retro-active change.

For most of the FSA, a deficiency is like a negative credit balance. Be careful with the RPA AFC, where it is generally ignored. I also suggest amending the 5500 since a deficiency is not the same as a contribution receivable. I assume the 2004 5500 Schedule B had a deficiency?

Nowafreeman..... you wouldn't happen to be a physician would you? Just a guess.

Personally, I don't see this as something the PA should be involved in. If there is no QDRO, you are just medling in their affairs (maybe litterally ) It is not the PA's responsibility to enforce a divorce decree, unless there is a QDRO or a pending QDRO.

I don't know the legality of it but I have worked with single employer collectively bargained plans that have joint trustees (union/employer). This can become problematic because as a single employer plan, the employer has all the liability to fund the negotiated benefit. I have seen situations where the union wants "their people" (actuary, investment guy, custodian, etc) who are often beholden to the union instead of the Plan or the employer. This can cause problems for the employer if they want to look at the impact of various changes without the union's knowledge. For example during a period of negotiations. It often evolves into a situation where each side hires their own consultants. This is especially true in larger plans where each side can afford it. I think most smaller single employer collectively bargained plans are totally controlled by the employers, except for the negotiated benefit level.

Do you guys also blame the athletes when the owners agree to huge salaries and then cry poor? Generally, the unions traded wages today for benefits tomorrow. The companies took their savings as spent it on other things. The unions aren't the only ones to blame, the companies agreed to provide the benefits. I know the unions have their share of issues, but I think the companies deserve some of the blame for unfunding their pension obligations. Ownership constantly gives in to union demands to avoid labor conflicts. They make future promises and then fail to fund them. Then they go bankrupt anyway and shift their unfunded liability to the government. (Airlines, Steel, Auto) The unions ended up trading todays wages for tomorrows benefit and ended up with neither. I'm just pointing out that there are two sides to every issue.

I agree, no NHCEs... no discrimination problems (at least as far as 410(b) & 401(a)(4)).

I am fairly certain that the spin-off (assuming it is really a spin-off) does not trigger full vesting, but I don't have a reference.

Do you mean "multi" or "multiple" employer plan? A multi-employer plan is a collectively bargained plan and when an employer leaves it could generate a withdrawal liability. ie: Ironworkers, bricklayers, steamfitters, teamsters, etc.. If it is a "multiple-employer" there is usually a contract or document that details what happens when an employer leaves. These can be very complex issues, where a good attorney is generally required. Also, I think 403b's are only available to non-profits. So maybe you have a multiple employer plan comprised of non-profit entities? I think we need some more info to properly understand your question.

The SOA page doesn't appear to have been updated since 10/31/05. Any idea why? Does anyone have the 12/1/05 rate?

Thanks Mike. That was very helpful.

benefits link I think the attached contains your answer. As you will see, I was shown the light.

How is this a 404 problem? Catch up contributions are not employer contributions. The employer already took the deduction on the payroll side. It is compensation, that the employee chose to defer. The employee has a problem and Trustee has a problem, but I don't think it is an employer deduction problem. Maybe the Trustee can simply return the 401(k) contributions since they are not permitted. Did the 2004 W-2 reflect the 2004 catch-up? If so, he may have to re-file his 2004 1040.

Catch-up contributions are employee $s, not employer $. Therefore, I don't think he has an employer deduction problem, but he has has a personal deduction problem. Maybe he also has a problem as the Trustee for accepting 401(k) money into the Trust when the Plan didn't contain proper language. Interesting issue. Maybe you should ask him to check real hard in his files and he just might find that amendment that added the 401(k) option. Even if he found it, it sounds like he still would have a $3,000 problem since he contributed both catch-ups in 2005. Sounds like the accountant may have some 'splaining to do.

Could you provide more details on the $6,000 excess? Exactly how was it determined? What was the "mistake in fact"? Didn't he know the amount of his compensation when he made the deposit? Sounds more like "ignorance of fact". You will also need to check the language in the Plan document. Plans often contain language relating to non-deductible contributions.

You need to read Rev. Proc. 2000-40. I believe it is only pre-approved if the change in normal cost and accrued liability is less than 5%. I think a lot depends on the size of the plan, but 10% is pretty high. You may want to contact the prior actuary and discuss potential reasons for the difference.

I received an invitation to join the College of Pension Actuaries (COPA) which is "a newly formed organization devoted exclusively to pension actuaries in good standing with the JBEA". Their objective is to "serve the professional needs of our members". I notice several significant names associated with this new organization so I refrained from immediately "filing" it. Since Mike Preston is listed as a director (as well as Kevin Donovan, Ed Burrows, Larry Deutsch and others) I wondered if Mike could share a few more details about its purpose. Since most of the names appear to be "ASPPA People" is this new organization somewhat in response to ASPPA's drifting away from pension actuaries? What is the mission? How can you "serve" your members better/differently than all the other organizations (Society, Academy, CCA, ASPPA, etc)? The mailing was fairly generic and I wondered what the real drive of the new organization will be. I think this could be a good thing, but I wanted to know more about its goals.

I have seen some strange vesting rules used by multi-employer plans, but they tend to be more generous, not more restrictive. A lot would depend on the number of hours he was working. Either way, I believe employee contributions are always 100% vested. However, he may think they are employee contributions, when in reality they are employer contributions. Since they negotiate the contribution rates, and usually trade pay for contributions, they often think of them as "my money", when in reality it is employer money.

Jim Holland

No takers? Even a guess would be appreciated.