Randy Watson

The new timing rules under the proposed 415 regulations provide that certain amounts payable within 2-1/2 months after severance will not fail to be 415©(3) compensation. Employers may presently rely on this timing rule. If an employer wanted to rely on this rule now would it have to adopt an amendment or could the employer merely adopt this rule in operation?

What happens if an employer continued to report the PS-58 costs even though that is no longer permitted under the final split dollar regulations? What should the employer do now, if anything, to correct this?

Good advice. Thanks. Namealreadyinuse, what exactly did you mean when you wrote that the DOL would be enforcing the plan asset and trust requirements not the IRS. Does that mean that the IRS does not have authority to pursue this?

There is plenty of evidence that the assets were clearly intended to be plan assets. What are the chances that the IRS will take that position? It does not seem likely that the IRS would force us to treat it as a distribution when these have been treated as plan assets for many years.

What are the ramifications for having plan assets titled in the name of the plan sponsor as opposed to the trust? This was merely an oversight by the plan sponsor.

This is all very helpful. Thank you.

Although a valid point, I'm not concerned about that issue. Liquidation is also permitted after a fixed number of years, regardless of the amount of the investment.

That is correct.

Are non-plan imposed limitations taken into account for purposes of 401(a)(4)? For example, an investment option in a plan is available to all, but only permits liquidation if the investment is worth X dollars. This limitation is imposed by the fund, not by plan design. Although not discriminatory on its face, it could be perceived as having discriminatory effect since it's likely that those eligible for liquidation will be HCEs only. Any thoughts?

Does anyone know of any good articles or websites that address the use of NQDC for pass-through entities, such as LLCs, partnerships and S-Corps? I have already seen a few threads on this message board but I was looking for something with more detail. Thanks.

It is discretionary, but don't believe that matters under1.401-1b)(2).

Very nice. Thank you.

It's not a violation because the 401(k) and the PS are merely components of the same plan?

We have a 401(k)/PS plan. Although matching contributions are made quite often, PS contributions have never been made. Is this plan in violation of 1.401-1(b)(2) (substantial and recurring contribution requirement)?

I believe that is the case as long as you pass 410(b). Does the Transition Rule mean that you don't have to satisfy 410(b) or does it mean that you are deemed to satisfy 410(b)?

The Transition Rule under 410(b)(6)© gives a free pass on coverage testing for the Transition Period. Does that mean you still have to pass ADP/ACP testing during that period based on employer wide data?

I know that there are several cases out there where scrivener's error was used as a defense to ERISA claims for benefits. I have yet to see a case or other guidance where scrivener's error was raised in the context of correcting plan qualification failures. Does anyone know of any? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the traditional doctrine of scrivener's error does not have a place in the context of qualified plans when plan document failures can be corrected under EPCRS. Any thoughts?

Although not as common as your typical stock option program, these types of arrangements do exist. They present some interesting tax issues that are not applicable to stock option plans. Let me know if you are interested in seeing some articles.

I'm looking for some general information on the use of option plans by LLCs. This type of plan would grant an employee the right to purchase a membership interest in the LLC. Does anyone know of a good website or article that addresses the major issues associated with these arrangements? Thanks.

Tax exempt 457(b) plan holds assets in a rabbi trust. The deferrals are fully vested when made. Does the nature of the rabbi trust create enough risk of forfeiture that FICA should not be withheld at the time of the deferral?

According to Section 515 of ERISA, a pension fund can enforce the collection of delinquent contributions based on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement or the terms of the plan. What happens if those documents are inconsistent and there are no provisions within either stating which controls in the event of a conflict?

Can the trustees of a multiemployer plan force a withdrawal of all employers, thus triggering withdrawal liability? Do the employers have the right to refuse this forced withdrawal imposed by the trustees?

Have there been any updates on this issue? Has California changed its position?

Can someone please confirm for me that if an employer makes a top heavy contribution after the due date of their tax return they will still get the deduction, but the deduction will be for the year the contribution is made rather than the year to which the contribution relates?

That certainly sounds reasonable, but how can an employee who receives cash tips directly from customers defer that money under a 401(k) plan? In other words, how can you defer what you have already received?