david rigby

do you have cancelled checks? pay stubs showing a deduction for loan? You might want to send an inquiry to the Plan Administrator (note, the capitalization is significant) in writing stating your concerns and requesting that they reconcile any questions.

Got link?

The applicability of these regs to DB plans is now "in flux". http://www.ncpers.org/nm/publish/news_67.html

...and probably increases the likelihood of not passing the ADP test.

This similar discussion might be useful. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=6713

IRS Notice 97-75 states that a plan can permit RMD distributions to cease in certain circumstances. Does your plan contain such provision? Note that A-8(a) lists the general requirements of operation and amendment: "A plan will not violate section 401(a)(11) and section 417 on account of an employee's cessation and recommencement of distributions in accordance with Q&A-7(a) if the plan operationally complies with either paragraph (B) or © of this Q&A-8, the plan is amended within the remedial amendment period for the plan for SBJPA changes to reflect that operational compliance, and the distributions stop prior to the end of that remedial amendment period.

Technically, 2520.105 is a proposed regulation issued by the PWBA under ERISA section 105 (I think it was issued in July 1980). From the phrasing of the original post, it appears that the question may center around what information is required following termination of employment. If that is the question, there is also a timeframe during which such information must be provided: to simplify, no later than the filing of the 5500 for the plan year following the plan year of termination.

My copy of Revenue Ruling 2000-53 was published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin 2000-47 (that is, the 47th week of 2000), dated 11/20/2000. Items in the IRB are usually available a few days (sometimes even a couple of weeks) before the publication date. Should be out soon. BTW, IRB can be viewed here: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/lists/0,,id=...d=98230,00.html

Several prior discussions on this topic. Try: http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12346 http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=12107

Also try Carol Calhoun's site: http://benefitsattorney.com/ Go to: Publications, Charts, Choosing Among 401(k), 403(B) and 457 Plans.

The assets are what the assets are.

That is correct. In other words, both the employee and the employer have to be "at risk", which the essential element in insurance. That characteristic is the underlying reason for flex accounts in the first place.

The original post did not specify that the participant had severed employment. We can assume that he is actually entitled to a distribution under the terms of the plan?

So, we can conclude that you liked the food.

Any link to other testimony?

Pardon my ignorance, but why do you need a determination letter to amend a plan in order to discriminate against HCEs?

Anyone want to share the "magic number"? Heck, we might even be interested in "Larry's show".

Probably a terminology distinction. Looks like the post meant to state that Mom is claimed as a dependent for tax purposes. MGB is exactly correct that tax withholding is not relevant. If that is what you mean, then Mom's medical expenses should be "coverable" under the reimbursement account. Note that this answer is not related to whether Mom is a covered dependent under the employee's medical benefits ("health insurance', etc.) sponsored by the employer.

What a nuisance. Sounds like this plan sponsor is a candidate for a different plan design, such as discretionary profit-sharing, or perhaps amend the plan to limit contributions in such a manner to minimize the liklihood of failing the test. P.S. is the plan top-heavy? P.P.S. At what level (numerically), is the ADP test failing?

Oh no! Jack Nicholson plays a retired actuary. http://www.aboutschmidtmovie.com

Modified-cash-refund is discussed in section 3.6 of Pension Mathematics for Actuaries by Arthur W. Anderson. Page 71 in the second edition. It may be discussed somewhere in an acutarial study note. Another source might be http://www.actuariallibrary.org/

Is this what you have in mind? http://www.freeerisa.com/

The TPA should probably not make this decision. Get the client and the client's attorney to do that.

This may seem petty, but as usual, actuaries disagree. Here goes: In selecting an AVA, I have chosen one of the pre-approved methods in Rev. Proc. 2000-40. Note that each of Approvals 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 uses the phrase "...no greater than 120% and no less than 80% of fair market value...". However, I have chosen a slight difference: use of a corridor of 90% to 110%. Does anyone think this distinction means I am not using a pre-approved method?

415 was not repealed; subsection 415(e) was repealed, but this impacts only the benefits under one or both plans. Deductibility is governed by IRC 404. $40,000 is the section 415© limit on the DC plan annual addition for 2002 (ignoring future indexing and "catch-up" contributions). You are probably referring to section 404(a)(7). The maximum deductible is limited to the greater of the IRC section 412 minimum for the DB plan or 25% of compensation. Thus, it is possible that the employer may not be able to deduct all contributions. If that situation arises, the next question usually involves carryover, rather than permanently losing a deduction.