masteff

Perhaps T Rowe Price? I'd suspect user error or a missing fact (like the exchanges were in fact conversions).

The (il)logical excess of multiple loans... http://www.sec.gov/answers/401(k)debitcards.htm http://www.finra.org/Investors/ProtectYour...ccounts/P038556

HSA's are IRS Code Section 223.

Yeah, your post explaining that got caught in the middle and I missed it. I'd think until there's regulatory relief then it'll take some sort of court action which would allow the plan to drop the dependent per 1.125-4(d). One question that jumps to mind is whether they have an existing custody agreement which says the parent w/ custody must provide coverage. And I'll leave the remaining argument about how (f)(4) works for another day.

We have insufficient facts because we don't know the child's eligiblity in the mother's plan prior to the move but the most likely would be ©(2)(iv) "Dependent satisfies or ceases to satisfy eligibility requirements". Which is why I've emphasized the word "if" above. Oh, and see Example 3 under reg section ©... "(iii) In addition, under paragraph (f)(4) of this section, if F makes an election change to cover G under F’s employer’s plan, then E may make a corresponding change to elect employee-only coverage under P’s cafeteria plan." EDIT: Just caught Chaz' post... so child had no change in eliglibility and no other status change reason applies, so no change allowed for the step-father. But if another reason did apply then (f)(4) would permit the step-father to drop the child.

Example 3 uses (f)(3) to illustrate and qualify for (f)(4)'s "election change that would be permitted under paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section (disregarding this paragraph (f)(4))". It could just as easily be any other valid election change reason, not just (f)(3)(iii)'s "Addition or improvement of a benefit package option".

Sorry I'm feeling thickheaded this week but what am I missing for why it doesn't fit? The above quoted regulation does not include any requirement that the child must lose eligiblity in the current plan (which you appear to have added as a requirement in your post yesterday), only a permitted change in coverage in the other plan. If and only if the child was added to the other plan in accordance w/ paragraphs (b) through (g) of 1.125-4, then I read that the employee should be allowed a corresponding change in the current plan. Or please be more detailed about what I'm missing. Edit: (f)(6) Example 3 supports that loss of eligibility in the current plan is not required for the application of the rule under (f)(4).

Could someone explain for me because I thought "change in status under another employer plan" was grounds to allow a prospective change. If moving to live w/ the birth mother resulted in a change in eligiblity for the child, why would "change in status under another employer plan" not apply now?

Thanks for the feedback, oriecat. We did finally interpret it as you did: the year beginning on date of hire and ending on first anniversary. I avoided specifics above so I wouldn't sway anyone's interpretation, but part of the ambiguity in this case came from the particular benefit it pertained to... our vacation policy uses the phrase "at completion of X years". The problem/trick when granting exceptions to a policy is putting aside the policy's wording and looking solely at the exception's wording.

I'm shooting from the hip (i.e., not looking at the rules before I answer), so sorry if I'm slightly off target but... I'd think it likely that moving to live w/ the birth mother resulted in the step-child gaining eligibility under birth mother's plan.

Since the relevant code section hasn't been explicitly stated in this thread: 401(a)(13)(A) says in part: "A trust shall not constitute a qualified trust under this section unless the plan of which such trust is a part provides that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated." I'd explain it's a double-edged sword... to protect it from creditors then it also can't just be given away to non-creditors.

IRS Pub 565 (page 16, "Where to deduct") agrees w/ what ERISAtoolkit is saying.... non-owner on Sch C and owner on 1040.

What is the reason why non-standard pay would result in a delay? Barring something that makes it signficantly different, then I'd say the timing for deferrals on regular pay sets the standard by which all deferrals should be deposited. That said... if non-standard pay is an "off-cycle" and/or manual event and nearly impossible to report out separately from the next regular cycle, then you might have a case. For example, if I did a manual check today, the data would be added to the next payroll run and everything (FICA, deferrals, withholding) would be indistinguishable from my other report totals for that run (not to mention that FICA and withholding wouldn't actually be remitted to the govt until that run).

Interestingly, Reg 1.416-1 T-32 (which addresses related and unrelated rollovers) says in part: "For purposes of determining whether two employers are to be treated as the same employer, all employers aggregated under section 414(b), © or (m) are treated as the same employer." 414 takes us to code section 1563(a) which contains some timing rules. But then Reg 1.416-1 T-6 says in part: "For purposes of determining whether the plans of an employer are top-heavy for a particular plan year, the required aggregation group includes each plan of the employer in which a key employee participates in the plan year containing the determination date, or any of the four preceding plan years." But is determing "unrelated vs related" a component of the "purposes of determining whether the plans of an employer are top-heavy for a particular plan year"? Which is to say: does T-6 govern T-32 (and therefore require a 4-year lookback)? I'd say yes, so 4-year lookback. I also think if the rollover had gone to an IRA and then come into Plan B, then it would lose it's related character.

So we hired someone and between management and headhunters, the phrase "beginning with your first year of employment" was used in the offer letter. I'm curious to hear what everyone's first take on that phrase is... what is the date or point in time on which that phrase is triggered? (Note: the phrase actually got used twice and the intent was clearer there so it was then applied consistent w/ that. And I've already given feedback to management so hopefully they modify the phrase in their next offer.)

Related or unrelated for purposes of what? I'm sensing an ulterior question you're trying to answer and knowing that would help us know the context of this question.

Wonder if that is before or after the fact that normal retirement age is 67 in 2025? Or is that the majority of the reduction to which they're alluding.

It can also be caused by automation.... A large national investment firm had a computer system that would not run deminimis cashouts on anyone who had previously received a complete lumpsum distribution... the problem was they would post subsequent earnings (especially money market paid at the end of the month) resulting in this type of small and silly balance. But I can't remember if we had a dollar threshold for forfeiting or if I'm confusing that w/ our loan policy which closed out any loan balance less than $5.

We split the participant's investments proportionately. So in simple terms, if at the close of business the AP's share was 16.67% of the balance then 16.67% of each investment was transferred to an account under the AP's name and SSN. The AP would then take control of the investments. You might start by talking to your investment company and see what backoffice processes they have in place so reality can match intent. We would actually send a QDRO split instruction letter and they would transact it at the close of business w/in one or two days. This made earnings/losses 100% current. (But that was a big investment firm, no idea what processes the smaller firms have in place.)

Cross linking to same question in other subforum: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=48992

If it can be done, it's not under the nonspouse rollover rules.... Code 402©(11) (added by section 829 of PPA '06) uses the definition of "designated beneficiary" from 401(a)(9)(E) which says "individual". Reg 1.401(a)(9)-4 Q&A-3 says "A person that is not an individual, such as the employee’s estate, may not be a designated beneficiary." If it was a trust, the answer might be different because 402©(11) provides for certain trusts to be eligible to do a rollover.

We always segregated the AP into a separate account. The AP would then take distribution from that separate account rather than it being issued out of the participant's account. Our plans provided that APs were restricted participants, same as beneficiaries (ie, rights to control investments and take certain distribution options but no rights to make contributions or otherwise accrue benefits). I can't begin to think of the privacy violations of permitting her online access to the particpant's account.

I'm seeing two separate issues.... service and contributions. Service: don't over construe the "12 month" line you quoted; the implication is simply 'if it's longer than 12 months then research it further' and not '12 months is magic and instantly becomes a break in service'. Your first sentence says the plan credits service for paid leave of absence so I think that's your answer (by simple definition, you can't have a break when you're getting credited for service). Contributions: I see this as an issue of compensation and the plan's definition of it. While the pay might qualify for crediting hours of service, it doesn't necessary mean it counts as plan compensation. As to PS and match, you'll need to read the plan but if the pay counts as plan comp then in a run-of-the-mill plan, I don't see how it would not count for PS and match. But no plan is ever truly run-of-the-mill, so check the plan doc.

Can NOT do qualified plan to qualified plan conversion. Other options are to do an in-plan rollover conversion (assuming either your or the other plan offers that and the participant is eligible to do so) or to rollover to a regular or Roth IRA. But once in a Roth IRA, (under the current rules) it can not come back to a qualified plan. After making everything relatively uniform w/ EGTRRA, they went and made it messy again.

If you want to be purely conservative, then strictly read the regs and disallow non-"fee" items like books. IRS website says: "tuition and related educational fees and expenses" If you take a more moderate approach and temper your reading of the safe harbor definition with other IRS material on the topic, then books and campus parking are ordinary and expected costs of obtaining an education. And I'd love to see proof of the having been rejected on audit (especially given I survived full IRS and DOL audits).