david rigby

Medical expense reimbursement plan. See "Fringe Benefit Plan" on page 4 of the 5500 instructions. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5500.pdf

Another thought: who do they want to cover? Don't forget 410( b).

Several prior discussions on this topic. Try the search feature.

If the corporation has dissolved (with no successor plan sponsor), doesn't that mean there is no longer a sponsor? Then the IRS rules about a "wasting trust" would seem to apply. The comments by KJohnson in this thread might be helpful.

"Retirement" does not automatically imply that the plan must terminate. A plan can continue to exist if its sponsor continues to exist.

Could this be relevant? http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2002-73.shtml

Try searching these message boards?

See if these help: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16104 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=5466

Sounds like this EE is eligible to participate in the plan and receive an allocation. The rehired status or current age should not have an impact on that. Your plan provisions will determine whether this EE must receive a distribution following age 70-1/2.

Probably need to determine first if the rehired employee is entitled to re-participate in the plan. Sounds like the EE meets the age and service requirements. Is there an hours requirement, either to get in the plan or to receive an allocation?

This does not smell right. Is the sole practioner the only participant in the plan? I thought a sponsor/owner/HCE could permanently waive whatever benefits are necessary to avoid the contribution in the year of plan termination.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=17200

Revenue Ruling 2002-63 is published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2002-45. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb02-45.pdf

Perhaps I'm just easily impressed, but note that QDROphile used "ranted" and "intellectual bankruptcy" in the same sentence. For the curious, here is the rant, er discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12283

I also vote for consistency. Although I'm not sure if it is the only way to do it in the second (or subsequent) year, I believe the valuation assets should be the value at 12/31/xx, minus the exact amount of any contributions already made for that year. However, I would still use zero at the first valuation date.

If the 10/1/01 contribution is for the 2001 plan year, I think it should be ignored at the 12/31/2001 valuation date. If this is the first plan year, the beginning assets should be zero, regardless of the valuation date.

My guess is that some plan sponsor is creating an "incentive" for the plan participant to maintain current address information. Of course, the incentive would be meaningless unless well-communicated.

R.Butler is correct. Consider if the original situation were 2 plans instead of two features within one plan. Top-heavy testing would require that you aggregate the account balances in the two plans to determine if the "aggregation group" is top-heavy. Then, if so, one top-heavy minimum benefit would be required, either in one plan or divided between the two (plan provisions controlling). Both plans would be required to use vesting at least as generous as the T-H schedule. Caveat: the previous statement assumes the two plans constitute an aggregation group due to common Key Employees. If that is not the case, then using separate plans might be beneficial.

411(d)(6) is concerned with the benefit. I suggest your question should focus instead on 411(a)(10). http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26-A-1-...-D-I-B-411.html

When you contact the Plan Administrator, remember that the inquiry should come from your wife, not you, and you should identify her Social Security Number, current address, prior address (if applicable). There are lots of these types of complaints that boil down to "unknown address".

Don't forget that a partial termination has only one impact: award 100% vesting to affected participants. Those not in the RIF would not be affected.

I asked a similar question previously: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=16238

"A Safe Harbor Notice was issued to the employer..." Who cares? Issued by whom? It is the notification to the employees that is important.

Careful review of facts and chronology. - Plan attorney drafted a safe harbor notice. - Attorney provided such notice to employer. - Employer (apparently) did not distribute the notice. - Employer (apparently) did not offer deferral elections to employees. Sounds like the employer changed his mind about offering a safe harbor plan. Is this correct summary?

A merger of two defined contribution-type plans does not normally trigger any special vesting.