E as in ERISA

Signed on Wednesday.

I know it's a very limited time frame. Not all years after. But I don't know if its only 2010.

See the top of page 15 of Notice 2005-92 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-05-92.pdf The employer can choose. It should probably choose based on what it's service provider can accomodate. Recordkeeping systems aren't really designed to do loan reamorts.

I think that the IRS issued a notice about last November making it optional on the part of the sponsor whether it wanted to adopt that provision.

No withholding on less than $200.

In other words you can define the class of eligible or ineligible employees by what they are doing ("photocopiers" or whatever the temporary special project is). Or you can exclude them as employees who work 1,000 hours or under. (Which generally doesn't work if you have immediate entry or any other service period less than a year). But you can't define by "temporary" employees. Because "temporary" is a time-related class. And by law the only time class that can be excluded is "1,000 and under."

No. It's based on number of participants, not assets. So if employees have credited service in that plan year then you file.

Have you tried http://www.ifebp.org or the ISCEBS web site including the login for CEBS members http://www.memberconnections.com/olc/pub/EBS/

PTE 1997-11 allows aggregation of IRAs and Keoghs for purposes of getting reduced fees. Absent a specific exemption for the 401k I would agree that it's probably a PT. There were a couple of amendments. Quick scan says that they don't extend to 401k. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/classexemptions/main.html

You'll find "master trust" in the 5500 instructions. Yes, that's single trust for multiple plans of one employer. And I think that an extra 5500 for the trust is still required. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2005-5500inst.pdf You also need to look at discussion of 81-100 group trusts for the rules on what provisions the trust will be required to include. http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/1981/revrul81-100.htm

The "brief exclusion" rule has been around for a while. Did you see page 59 of the 2003 Revenue Procedure http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-03-44.pdf ?

Revenue Ruling 2003-102 said that 213 is not controlling for purposes of whether something can be reimbursed by a cafeteria plan. It allows reimbursement for over the counter drugs even though 213 doesn't allow deduction for most. It only has to be something that can be reimbursed under 105.

Who's autopsy? And why does the participant think it's reimbursable? Is the purpose to test a deceased relative to see if they have some disease that is hereditary? Test a parent to see if they have something so that the participant knows whether they should take some preventive action? I don't know if that makes a difference.

If late deposit and correction with earnings all occur in 2005 you file a 2005 5330 marked discrete. One loan. if the late deposit is in 2005 but correction with earnings doesn't occur until 2006 then you have a second loan starting in 2006. See the instructions. So the 2006 Form 5330 would indicate you have two loans. One for 2005. One for 2006. Not discrete.

Pending legislation would provide an "un-do" distribution for participants who didn't pay attention to the notice and then opt out after a small amount has been withheld. If you wait, you'd be able to use that to get rid of those small balances.

All years are generally "open" if you've never filed. (Filing is generally required for the statute of limitations to run on the return and for the year to "close.") But some choose only to go back three years or so.

And it's going to say to follow the IRS EPCRS procedures, which were drafted a year ago but still aren't published yet.

But since you have actual knowledge of plan loan availability, you should also make them take a plan loan first (if one is available, of course), etc.

Has ASPPA posted anything more current than 2004 IRS Qs on its web site. Where? http://www.asppa.org/education/ed_conf_qa.htm

And the IRS has a new Employee Plans Compliance Unit that is specifically targeting Form 5330s. So most people might have just filed one 5330 for year of correction in the past. But now the IRS is looking for excise taxes for all years with each year being a discrete transaction for successive years' filing.

Since lost earnigns are the issue an dyou didn't deposit them until 2006, then I believe that technically you are required to file 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

http://www.salary.com

I have no idea what the right answer is. However, I could make an argument for saying the second leave is good. Consider the elapsed time method of crediting hours where you span service if the employee returns within 12 months of the original leave date. The return to employment in your case could be proof of the participant's continued employment relationship with the employer. If the IRS' concern is that there is no definition of termination for plan purposes and you don't know if the employee is really terminated or continuing in employment if the leave goes beyond a year.

The examples in Rev. Rul. 2000-8 used three percent. Some may have assumed that was required. Because in its 2004 information letter to Mark Iwry the IRS clarified that any percentage was allowed. However, the pension bill in conference would probably require a three percent minimum for the discrimination safe harbor.

Have you never been involved in a real IRS audit?