david rigby

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.

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.