E as in ERISA

I certainly don't know the answer. But it doesn't seem to me that there is an obvious one either. If the guy didn't waive the life annuity, then his untimely death could would make a difference. It certainly seems advisable for someone in ill health to choose a lump sum. But then it looks like a timing question. Which controls: date of election form, death, or annuity starting date. The EOB doesn't give a cite but Chap 6 V.B.1.g actually says that QPSA rules apply if the participant dies prior to the annuity starting date (before commencement of benefits). Did the guy waive the 90 day period? (Does that make a difference?) And if he didn't and hasn't waived the QPSA does that change the answer? Or does completion of the election automatically accelerate the "annuity starting date"?

I think that the statute says the obvious business reports are required to be provided. And the regulation fills in any gaps. If there is some report or other information that it is not so obvious that it is required to be provided, then it can become so upon request of the client.

Under the controlled group and common control rules, the IRS generally treats a 100% owned subsidiary the same as a division. A stock purchase shouldn't be treated substantially different than a stock purchase/merger. But there is a lack of guidance in this whole area. So it's probably better to be as safe as possible in any case.

Yea. I consider what I did to be cheating anyway. So the questions shouldn't have to be perfectly "googlable"

See June 1 entry from http://www.benefitscounsel.com/benefitsblog/ with links to health and welfare resources. Also on her sidebar.

D doesn't google. But camera three does. Is it "Now you see on camera three" Chipmunks?

Per google: A Have Gun Will Travel? B Mickey Mouse Club? C Greatest American Hero?

ANSWERS? http://www.actualentertainment.com/puzzlers/puzzle21.htm

Be careful. That might be how the calculation is done if immediate. But what if the participant went in that day to find information because he was contemplating a transfer. He saw the error and requested a correction immediately. Failure to fix immediately has possibly caused him a loss. Harder to calculate now.

#1: Green Acres #4: Beverly Hillbillies #6: Jeffersons #7: All in the Family #8: Mary Tyler Moore #11: Adams Family? #16: One Day at a Time? or Maude? #17: Jetsons #18: Flintstones? #22: Brady Bunch #23: Gilligan's Island

In a lot of cases it's not even an employment attorney but someone in Finance with a tax background who's handling technical plan issues.

Proposed legislation could change this.

Some sponsors choose to have large plans audited even if not legally required by ERISA. Large plans with lots of money that look very similar to a 401(k). For reasons similar to those underlying the legally required audits.

Are there any circumstances under which you could claim that this was a clarification, not a change in plan terms. Could you claim that in a small plan the term "as soon as administratively feasible after termination" would generally never be sooner than the next year. Because you only have benefits calculated once a year?

But be careful. The 30 to 90 days is generally from the date of the notice(s), not the date of the participant election.

This is different than an individual checking account. The bank writes the check. The trust account is immediately debited. It is not clear what the DOL's position is if the check is not cashed. There are some remarks that say it is trust assets. Which means it should be credited back to the trust account if not cashed.

Sometimes it takes a while for the DOL to send notices. They could still eventually get the notice that says that they better have a 2004 audit or else pay $50,000. They usually have a short time to respond to those notices. So I'd start the 2004 audit before the notices begin.

As long as you don't actually make retroactive 401(k) elections covering compensation prior to implementation of the plan it should not be a big deal. Make sure that the owner is not participating before the NHCEs.

Agree. In essence, his statutory entry date was probably the 1/1 or 7/1 following age 21 and 1 year of service. Actual entry was delayed until he was in the plan's specified class of employees. But then immediate entry.

Starting point is that you do for the client what they have hired you to do and you don't do what you're not hired to do. And make sure you're taking direction from the client not another service provider. Are you're hired to prepare a complete 5500 based on information you have? Then adjust the agreements to say you're doing an incomplete draft if that is all you're comfortable doing. If you're not hired to prepare 5330s, you don't prepare them.

And fix the SPD, too.

From a personal perspective, I think that the primary reason for purchasing insurance is to cover catastrophic events. An unexpected bill for major surgery and hospitalization after a car accident. I like high deductibles (with corresponding lower premiums). I like self-insuring smaller risks. I'd assume that there are more "physical health" issues that are catastrophic in nature.

I don't know if you can purchase this insurance. But maybe you can self insure up to $100,000 and then get policies with a "deductible" of $100,000" that insure up to $1,000,000 for non-exempt employees. You wouldn't have to perform discrim testing on the insured benefits. Are there companies that provide those policies?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...id=f:publ95.104

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...id=f:publ95.104