E as in ERISA

Yes. PN is always assigned by sponsor without approval from DOL. Just give it BBB's EIN with PN 002. I think that page two of the 5500 will tell them that it was formerly AAAs EIN with PN 001?

You have to order them. They have a special ink that disappears so that they scan properly. Instructions for ordering are on the cover page of the IRS "informational" form: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5500.pdf

I thought they have been a target for years.

What was not immediately understood was that the DOL was tying "as soon as feasible" to the payroll tax deadline. It was unbelievable considering that DOL had just acknowledged in the preamble all the differences between forwarding payroll taxes versus processing 401(k) deposits with the extra work -- related to reconciling at a participant level for 401(k), the investment elections So many believed that taking it to the 15th deadline was barely feasible if you were doing reviews and reconciliations of data. Technology has continued to improve the process each year. And the e-sign legislation and rules have confirmed that an electronic environment is okay. I think it was 1999 before the IRS clarified electronic methods can be widely used for elections. So maybe e-elections were not widely used until the 21st century. I assume a high percentage of employees is now entering their elections directly on the recordkeepers phones or web and that has improved timelines.

They started applying the "as soon as possible" standard pretty soon after the regulations were finalized. The proposed regulations had intended to use a standard that was the same as the timeline for depositing payroll taxes. So that is how the DOL began enforcing the rule after the final regulations: Payroll tax deadline plus a few days. But at first no one was aware unless they knew someone who had been audited. So most were not applying it that way. See if there was a year in which the employer and/or recordkeeper had a technology change that would have facilitated earlier transmission. Consider using that date.

Look at the voluntary fiduciary correction program for ideas.

Are you asking this philosophically? (I.e., why do we maintain this somewhat arcane rule that gives the spouse a little bit of an interest in the participant's plan -- a rule that was probably created years ago when the husband went to work for an employer for thirty years and the employer provided the husband and non-working spouse a retirement benefit for both their lives?) Or are you asking this legally? (I.e., what code section requires a QJSA form of benefit with spousal consent?)

The subpoena should be specific. And they should only provide what the subpoena asks for. And only if they are the party identified in the subpoena, etc. This is why they need legal counsel to tell them what they should provide.

You don't deduct outflows in determining "gross receipts." (If you do, then you're only looking at "net receipts.")

What is questionable is his suggestion that there are only those TWO methods and nothing else (1) individual brokerage accounts for each participant with transactions for each trade and (2) plan with no individual brokerage accounts - investment in mutual funds - with daily valuation by recordkeeper and IVR. There are many small plans run using individual brokerage accounts to give "daily valuation" to participants with recordkeeper doing a report at the quarter or year end. I'm not familiar with all the fee arrangements. But I'm pretty sure that most don't have transaction fees. The size of the plan may be an issue here and limit options. But I'd still check other service providers.

The Senate version of the pension bill currently in conference has a provision for 401(k) plans for state and local government employees.

Under 404 rules, the fiduciary of the profit sharing plan also has to act solely in the interest of the profit sharing plan participants. He has to evaluate the decision to buy based on the benefit to PS participants. If you start off by giving the reasons why it's good for someone else and no reasons why its good for them, then I think you fail the litmus test.

Yes. There are not specific exemptions for VEBAs. But any generally applicable exemptions would apply. If I recall, one of the issues that you sometimes into with a VEBA is what is gross receipts. And what accounts should be considered part of the trust. The flow of money through these arrangements often isn't clear. One claim can be over $25,000. Depending on how the money flows it might or might not be part of the trust receipts.

Some maintained the 12-month rule after the change to six months. The 6-month rule w/delay of match would be more complicated. Delaying match doesn't support the conclusion that the person needs a hardship. It would cause you to have different rates of match for participants with benefits/rights/features issues. And it would be an issue on testing.

A VEBA files a 990.

I thought it was about the 86 act? The calendar year rule applied to partnerships, S-Corps, personal service corpoarations unless they could establish a business purpose for a fiscal year. Bank trust departments got all their trust returns changed to calendar years, too?

http://benefitslink.com/erisaregs/403.html

The 15 day rule wasn't final until mid 1996. Not effective until early 1997. Before that it was 90 day rule that is still applicable to welfare plans.

That assume that they have elected to be taxed as a partnership -- which it appears they will be based on the facts that they will receive K-1s and cannot receive wages?

That was what came to mind for me too: Jurisdiction. If the person couldn't be reached by a federal court, I wouldn't appoint them.

And since its a grey area, that's a tenable position. I have a concern about any statements suggesting that the directed trustee has no responsibility and that its solely the plan administrator's issue. The better answer is that there is some risk. So it's best to be doing something.

And we understand that the trustee is not in full control of all the facts to make the determination on deeming. But the trustee probably has 1099-R responsibility. So it's a grey area. The trustee should do something more than sit back and wait for employer instructions if it wants to make sure it doesn't get hit with 1099-R penalties.

It's not technically a refinancing if you are not increasing the principal amount or interest rate or extending the term of the loan. So it shouldn't be a plan document issue. There will be more payments, but in lower amounts. So ideally contemplates that by having the terms focused on the principal and interest rate and providing some leeway in regard to the frequency and size of payments.

Deeming is a 1099-R issue. The payor (often the directed trustee) generally assumes 1099-R responsibility. But this is not a 1099-R for actual distributions. Only taxation of amounts deemed distributed. What is your agreement with the plan administrator in that regard?

The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act. Summary of conference report at http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/May1106ConfRt...tion%20act' Text of legislation can be found on Senate's legislation page http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/legislation.htm