namealreadyinuse

A's distribution AND loan procedures have to permit it. It will technically be an in-kind distribution of property (the loan note is really the asset being distributed) and the loan procedures can't automatically default on a termination/distribution. Not rocket science, but you definitely have to have cooperation from A because I'll bet that most plans do not permit this.

I am terrible at searching the web, but I looked and didn't see anyone selling this book. Do you mind me asking where you found it?

What happened? Maybe you weren't "smooth" enough?

Aren't there several different versions and revision dates? I would be cautious about using a basic plan that does not match.

401(a) plans are superior to IRA for loans and asset protection (in many states), right?

LDY for match is unusual I believe. The IRS position is that you can't amend that formula now, I believe. The way around is to use a contribution that has a LDY already (QMACs) or create a new one with a LDY. You amend the existing match to read 0% for 2006 and you add a new "Auxiliary Match" or "Supplemental Match" (or better yet, call it a PS cont.) with entirely new provisions and a LDY. It is not bulletproof, but you can do it if you carry it off "smoothly."

You should probably just treat the memo as a plan amendment and formalize it or change it back now for next year. You could also amend the plan document now, effective 12/31/05 because retroactive effective dates for cafeteria plans aren't really a huge issue where you have some communication of the change. Treat everyone fairly - let people facing forfeiture know about the extended date.

Search for threads on "restorative payments" to get an idea on the IRS requirements for avoiding treatment as a contribution.

I have the same problem. Since you are making 30%-60% on your own, you should ignore the match and just keep your outside investments going. Why go to all of the trouble for the 15% net gain? Matching contributions are for chumps who don't know anything about investing!!!

I have never heard of multiple trustees signing and need to follow up on that I guess. Is that really your standard practice if there is more than one individual trustee?

Where are you?

Dumber question: Did they happen to receive 80% of the acount balance?

No updates to the old IRS model notice. There is a lot to update in the 402(f) notice for Roths. For example, the employee’s period of participation under the distributing plan is not carried over to the Roth IRA for purposes of determining whether the employee satisfies the 5-taxable-year requirement under the IRA. Of course, these are proposed regs. Anyone think we can wait to update tax notices for the distribution details until the proposed regs are finished.

Same issue. A 401(k) plan is a CODA (cash OR deferred arrangement).

You would want to forfeit the match on Roth for the same reason. If not, you run the risk (probability) of a discriminatory rate of match. No Roth amendments have been doen yet, but it should be universal that Roth ECs should be treated the same as pre-tax ECs.

You don't have to wait, right? If you make an IRA contribution now, you can designate whether it is for 05 or 06. Make it for 05 if you are eligible for Roth.

I agree. Things like WW or Slimfast are dual purpose. They are not ok if for general health or wellbeing like viatmins. If prescribed or performed by physician to treat specific disease or condition, it should be ok.

They are correct, although it is not explained very well. Your premiums are going through a POP and that is subject to the same rules as the FSA as far as changes in elections. Bottom line, you need a qualifying change in family status under the IRS rules and the change needs to be consistent with that change.

Code Section 402(f) special tax notice must be sent at least 30 days before any eligible rollover distribution unless the participant waives the delay in writing. If you reduce the cashout to $1k, the category from 1K to 5K is no longer significant. It should just be 1K+. Many (most) documents provide that distributions will be made as soon as adminitratively practicable, whatever that means.

Do they really need more comp? Aren't they at $220,000 already?? Usually the problem is additional employees (NHCEs) at the newly discovered partnership, but that doesn't sound like an issue here.

It was only a model amendment if you are adopting the autorollover. Many are reducing the cashout to $1,000, so that would not be a model amendment, right?

Why do this in an ERISA plan? How does this help satisfy the prudence requirement for investments?

What is a "Section 105 medical reimbursement plan?" It sounds to me like a full-blown self-insured medical plan, not just a health FSA. If that is the case, it is subject to ERISA. An HRA is just a tax devise that is not subject to ERISA, right?

No and probably not. The IRS is using the new procedures in procesing all applications, so call them if you want.

I think 408A(e) applies the 12 month rule to Roths by cross-referenceing 408(d)(3).