E as in ERISA

I think that as long as you show the transfer (both the dollar amount going out and the plan to which it is being transferred), then the DOL will understand. No need to mark it as a termination.

QDROphile is exactly right. Ideally the assets of the MP belong to the PS at 1/1/02. After that date all assets and transactions should relate to the PS. But the documents aren't always perfect....

Start with the assumption that the only purpose for which you will use the 10/1/01 through 9/30/02 period is for the compensation that will be used for is the allocation. Except where the plan might be allowed to choose a different period, you will be using standard time frames for virtually every other purpose. E.g., You will be discrimination testing using plan year compensation! You will probably be using $200,000 as the compensation limit, unless the plan terms would limit compensation to $170,000.

That is the general phone number for EFAST processing. If you ever lose that number, try and remember that it can found by looking up EFAST on the PWBA's section of the DOL web site or going to http://www.efast.dol.gov/contact.htm .

You can get copies of 5500s from the Public Disclosure Room. For info see http://www.dol.gov/pwba/publications/how_t...btain_docs.html. It's not as fast as freeerisa.com but its more comprehensive.

I think that this goes straight to the "Enron" issue of employees claiming that they felt pressured to hold stock -- i.e., they are saying that their choice of employer stock wasn't wholly voluntary. If there are no confidentiality procedures in place at all times or those procedures have not been published to employees, then the employer is not protected from the employees' choice of employer stock under 404©. The rule is actually in Labor Regs. Sec. 2550.404c-1(B)(2)(i)(B)(1)(vii). Further details are in Labor Regs. Sec. 2550.404c-1(d)(2)(ii)(E)(4)(vii)-(ix).

P.S. You're not a plaintiff's attorney are you?

What if I soften my statement to say: If you're sending it electronically instead of on paper -- and you don't meet the safe harbor -- then there is no guarantee that you are in compliance (i.e., you may be at significant risk that you are not in compliance)"? This then becomes a "facts and circumstances" situation. If everyone has computers on their desks, I think that you'll generally meet the safe harbor. But based on the comments in the preamble to the regulations, if you have users whose only access is a kiosk at the office or a home computer, then there is risk that the DOL would find that an email SAR is not a method "reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt."

I believe that your analysis is correct, and like you I believe that most employers are not complying with it.

P.S. You may have a variety of other issues such as whether both companies officially adopted the plan, whether the appropriate type of document was used, whether the determination letter if any was properly applied for, whether testing was performed accurately, etc.

It sounds like there is only one plan -- but that it is a multiple employer plan. Before 1999 one Form 5500 was completed, with the employers attaching Forms 5500-C/R to provide coverage info by entity. After 1998 one Form 5500 is completed, with multiple Schedule Ts to provide coverage info by entity. So it sounds like you need amended returns.

It's also my understanding that specific "individuals" (id'd by name) can't be "classes" -- but I don't know the authority for that.

If you're sending it electronically instead of on paper -- and you don't meet the safe harbor -- then you're not in compliance.

There is no "official" list. It is generally an author's opinion -- which is hopefully based on some level of knowledge.

If you don't meet the safe harbor for electronic format, then you could be subject to penalties. The criminal penalties for wilful noncompliance with reporting and disclosure penalties just increased to $100,000 and 10 years in jail for individuals, $500,00 for corporations (under Sarbanes-Oxley).

A client timely filed an incomplete 5500 (no audit, some incorrect answers). It received notices. It filed amended returns and responded to notices. However, it did a poor job, and none of the amended returns or responses was complete (the updates on the amended returns were not included in the notice responses and vice-versa). The client eventually got a $50,000 notice. They wrote a reasonable cause letter explaining how the administrator had not provided info for the audit to be completed, how they had amended as soon as it was completed, the mix-ups in responding to notices that was partly due to changes in personnel, etc.) The DOL found "reasonable cause" existed to reduce the penalty -- but only to $5,000. The lesson I've been told is that they'll reduce the penalty for reasonable cause -- but don't expect it to be below the DFVC amount.

I'm not sure. I've never seen one like that. But I would note that contributions and benefits in a profit sharing plan don't have to be definite -- the only thing that is "definite" is the allocation formula. So that might suggest that you can't have variable allocation formulas in the same plan.

Are you sure that multiple employer plans cannot adopt prototypes? Or was it that multiple employer plans could not rely on the opinion letter for a standardized prototype? Do you want to have a separate plan and trust for the employer? Or do you want to participate in a multiple employer plan? I believe that the change occurs at the date of the change in status.

Plan assets must be used exclusively for the benefit of participants and beneficiaries. Many times the stop loss policies benefit the employer. If that is the case, then they should not be paid by the PLAN or you have a fiduciary violation. So they should be paid by the EMPLOYER out of its assets. BOTH the audit and the 5500 are reporting on the PLAN. If the stop loss benefits the employer and has been paid by the employer, neither the audit or 5500 should include the stop loss premiums or proceeds.

The default is still paper. But they can be delivered electronically to the extent you meet the safe harbor requirements in the final regulations. That regulation allows them to be delivered electronically to employees who have computers at work and to other participants and beneficiaries who have received the necessary notification, have accepted electronic delivery and who have demonstrated that they can read the document in the format delivered (e.g., pdf, html, etc.). See the explanation and regs at www.dol.gov/pwba/regs/fedreg/final/2002008499.htm.

It depends on how the transactions are documented. Plan A could be amended to provide that Law Firm B's portion of the plan is "spun off" and that Law Firm B will assume sponsorship of that portion of the plan. Or Law Firm B could adopt an entirely new plan with identical provisions and the employees could roll their money into the new plan.

The adoption date is the date executed; the effective date is the date that benefits under the plan start. The adoption date might be before or after the effective date. A company could adopt a profit sharing plan on 9/10/02 that is effective 1/1/03, or that is retroactively effective to 1/1/02. (But 401(k) deferrals can't start until after the adoption date -- because the elections can't be retroactive)

I believe that related corporations can only do that if they use "common paymaster" rules (which as allow them to avoid double paying the employer's portion twice).

If it is going to be a cash payment that is additional W-2 compensation, then it is possible that the plan document already permits the employees to defer a portion. Check the plan's definition of "Compensation" for purposes of accruals/elective deferrals and see if it includes all uses a definition that generally includes all taxable compensation, all W-2 compensation, or all income subject to withholding and that it doesn't exclude special payments like bonuses, ect. Then check your current election form and see how it tracks with with the plan definition (i.e., are employees electing to apply the deferral rate to all "Compensation" or just regular pay?)

For the stock to be reported as a holding on a form, does it matter whether the stock is purchased with cash or contributed "in kind" (or whether it was derived from employer or employee contributions, for that matter)?