J Simmons

I would think that to separate out STD benefits from mere sick pay, a determination of disability is required. That would seem to require the type of discretionary determination by a 'plan administrator' that ERISA was designed to govern.

Not hallucinating. An ER can rely on the EE's representations, if nothing known to the contrary, to establish that there are no other available resources to satisfy the immediate and heavy financial need. Treas Reg § 1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iv)©.

Sometimes the 1,000 hours in the current plan year as an accrual requirement must be relaxed to pick up a sufficient number of employees to pass 410(b) minimum coverage testing. So there is a way that 410(b) can prevent the imposition of the 1,000 hours requirement.

I have one pending from January 2008, two months longer than the one you mention. Still no response.

Off-the-cuff, my understanding is that the death benefits under USERRA provisions apply only to governmental 457b plans, and that the qualified reservist distribution provisions do not apply to any 457b plan.

Did you represent to the defined benefit plan when you began taking benefits that you were single? Or are the payouts on a joint and survivor basis with your estranged husband as the second life?

Voluntary life (or vision) insurance in a cafeteria plan may be an ERISA welfare benefit plan for which a F5500 is required. See more below. More is required to dispel a cafeteria plan's status as an ERISA welfare benefit plan than that no ER contributions are involved. Is it a group policy involved? Are the premium rates better than what the EEs could get on their own with no ER involvement? Does the ER endorse the insurance? Does the ER receive any $ from the insurer other than just reimbursing the added cost to administer payroll reductions? Is the ER involved in making any eligibility decisions? The consequences of getting it wrong for not filing a F5500 that should have been weigh much more heavily than the cost/burden of preparing and filing a F5500.

This snippet might help; it is footnote 1 to Rev Rul 2004-22, IRB 2004-10: Also check Soc Sec Reg § 411.160

See, notapensiongeek, what'd I tell you about Larry? He can circle the wagons right around it. (By the way, Larry, this is one of the few times I've concocted a straight-up metaphor with out mixing them--oops, there I go again.)

For consistency sake, would the IRS argument to exclude the premium have to concede that the person in question in an eligible dependent, and therefore defeat their attempt to include the covered health expenses as beyond 105(b)?

YES Would the individual have his/her own coverage if the premiums were taxed to the employee? and thus 104(a) apply instead of needing 105(b)? Probably a stickier question in the self-funded context.

Another citation is Rev Rul 76-250, IRB 1976-2

PPA did not change that. You may yet do so in 2008 and 2009. To my knowledge, PPA does not expressly state that it did not change this. However, Larry/Sieve is a useful source of citations for negative propositions.

Does ERISA permit a plan administrator to deal with the agent of an employee per a power of attorney in the following respects under a state's enactment of Uniform Power of Attorney Act, Another provision, at least as enacted in my state, provides

After the trustee-to-trustee transfer from the plan of the A EEs' benefits to the C 401k plan, I think that what was the A-B plan could then be terminated, fully vesting the two employees and being the reason for a distribution even if those 2 EEs remain employed by B.

JanetM, Do you recall what the authoritative source that legal opinion used for definition of 'master trust'? Most every description I've heard requires some collective or pooling of assets, and each plan having a percentage thereof. Seems rather form over substance to say that two or more funds separately accounted for are part of a master trust. One document certainly is a factor towards a master trust (hard to imagine how a master trust would exist without a shared document). But whether the same document governing two separately invested funds of itself renders the separate funds to be part of one master trust seems rather formalistic.

The ADP test is designed to gauge the use (HCE vis-a-vis NHCE) by those eligible to make elective deferrals. One who has met the plan's 'eligibility' rules, but has no eligible compensation to defer is foreclosed from the opportunity to defer. So including that person in the ADP test as a zero distorts the results of what the ADP test was originally designed to gauge. So I would hope the IRS would come down on the side of excluding such individual from the ADP testing.

And all in 4 minutes from 9:54 to 9:58 AM (my time zone, anyway).

I agree with Larry. The letter from the mortgage company needs to be more concrete than may/can foreclose. It needs to specify something like, "if you do not pay $X by Y date, then steps toward foreclosing will be taken." In my view, only when the mortgage company's threats get that 'connected' is the financial hardship 'necessary to prevent' foreclosure. That's where I've drawn the line in the sand.

How do you determine the amount of the taxable benefit? Good question. Clearly the delta between what the premium would have been without the ineligible dependent and with would be taxable (and yes, not electable through a cafeteria plan on a tax-free basis). There was a thread last spring I believe (sorry I don't have it linked here) that discussed whether that delta alone would be the value to be included in the EE's taxable income. On the one hand, the premium without the ineligible dependent is tax-free, so the taxable part ought to be just the delta. On the other hand, maybe it is the value of the coverage (sort of on a stand-alone or more evenly partitioned basis of the entire premium for the 'family' grouping) that ought to be included in taxable income to the EE.

Not required. Some (including me) think it is highly advisable. Others do not.

Where is the infeasibility out provision of ERISA? (I'm sincerely hoping you can direct me to it!) Large though it may be, you could have a clerk begin with a list of the names of the DBP participants whose benefits will be transferred, and then cross off those that have been reported on prior Schedule SSAs. Voila, the result is who now needs to be reported incident to the merger. Since it is just mirror information, once assembled for the transferee plan, it would not be that difficult to add the page 2's of Schedule SSA that that were prepared for the transferee plan and submit them on behalf of the transferor plan as well. That way you are meeting the strict terms of the instructions.

1 & 2. If you get a mortgage (leveraging the purchase), you will have UBTI. 3. TEE signing personally mortgage = PT. Also, if the property is more than 5% of the plan's assets, you'll blow the small employer exemption from the annual, independent audit requirement.

Isn't the language in the safe harbor categories "necessary to prevent" foreclosure? In my state, the home buyer has 120 days after foreclosure proceedings are formally begun and noticed up in order to prevent foreclosure sale to a third party. Maybe a 10-day demand letter from an attorney that foreclosure proceedings will be started if the entire past due amounts are not brought current before then would do.

Are you sure that for eligibility that in addition to a year of service the plan requires an EE to then have 1,000 hours too? Or is it that to earn that year of service, the EE must have 1,000 hours of service during the 12-month measuring period? Or is it that to be eligible there must be a year of service, and then once eligible and entered to accrue a benefit the employee must have 1,000 hours of service in the current plan year? As you have described the plan--that both the year of service plus a separate 1,000 hours is required for eligiblity--is something I've not heard of before.