david rigby

See set of buttons in the middle of this page, near the top. Click on the "Search" button.

Keith is correct.

Early retirement might not be irrelevant. If the manager and/or the company wants to ease the situation of an employee being involuntarily terminated, then having information about other HR issues can be important.

I don't know if these are the only, or most important, issues: 1. Is there more than one "participating employer" under the Plan, presumably with formal statements of adoption? 2. Who is paying the compensation (and W-2) for these EEs? If the "other" company does not have an adoption of the plan, I wonder how it thinks it can deduct anything as a contribution to a qualified plan. If the "other" company does have an adoption of the plan, does that raise questions of coverage relating to its other employees?

Does it make a difference whether the loan is "to himself" or as an investment of the plan?

My read of the top heavy regs. finds the phrase "perform any services". Several uses of this (or similar) phrase. I did not find a reference to W-2 or to being on the payroll. My conclusion to your question is "no."

I have heard that in some states, any marriage or birth of a child subsequent to the signing of a will automatically invalidates that will. Not sure if this is accurate, but easy to see how such "life events" should be recognized in a will.

From the facts given 1. if no beneficiary designated, form defaults to spouse first, then to estate; 2. he designated no beneficiary; looks like the spouse is the beneficiary.

Sounds good to me. Just a caution. When you state that the "plan is top heavy for calendar 2000", let's clarify. First, top heavy is plan year based, not calendar year based. Second, the top heavy percentage at 12/31/1999 is used to determine if a top heavy minimum for 2000 will apply.

Might be perfectly legitimate if the ER has certain positions that require bi-lingual ability. Probably should have well-defined job descriptions.

The services offered by many, but not all, consulting firms include employee communication materials. If your group/task is of sufficient size, likely several firms, including mine, would be glad to discuss with you.

Link to Q&A column mentioned by Tom: http://www.benefitslink.com/qa_columns/pla...cts/index.shtml Could be another issue with respect to deduction taken by the employer.

As near as I can figure this out, the participant did three things wrong: not getting spousal consent as required, not using the money as he promised, and not returning the promissory note. But the plan administrator did (at least) one thing wrong: giving the money to the participant without the plan requirements (consent, promissory note) being completed. Sounds to me like the administrator needs to lean on the EE, but PA may have to admit fault as well.

Implicit in this thread is the possible concept that an administrator should/could be compensated based on the revenues/profits generated. To what degree is this in actual use?

What kind of employee? HCE? You are right, this is a bad situation. If HCE, very bad. If owner, very very bad. Sounds like the EE might be trying to keep funds away from spouse. I'll bet the judge will have something to say about this. The plan's best hope might be that his divorce attorney will let him know the meaning of "fraud".

Attachment is in our files with the name "71GATPFC". I have never used it so I cannot comment on its origin. I cannot even confirm that this is exactly what Gary has requested. I only have it as unisex, although this might be a male only table. Sorry I can't be more specific.

Thanks for clarifying the terminology.

The ACP test comes from IRC 401(m). This tests the sum of matching contributions and after-tax contributions. If you this test, how are you going to adjust to pass? Reduce match (not a well-received option)? Refund after-tax (then why do it in the first place)?

Well, that is one of the reasons for the SPD requirement. Employer has the responsibility to provide (an accurate) one. Employee has the responsibility to read it. Still, anyone can sue anybody for anything.

Excuse my ingnorance here, but why is an Illinois district court involved in this? Isn't this an issue for federal courts? http://www.thompson.com/libraries/retireme...s/mend0110.html

What do you want the answer to be? I have seen many transactions where the acquired employees' prior service is used for vesting and eligibility only. But, this might depend on prior policies, whether the acquired entity has a plan, whether the acquisition is assets or stock, etc. In the case of a 401(k) plan, these employees could enter immediately, on the next entry date, or on a special entry date (such as first of next month) created just for them. Lots of variation, and it may depend on what is negotiated in the transaction. Practicality may be important. Choose a method that everyone will understand, and that will make doing the ADP testing easiest. Is this any help?

You might look at this link http://benefitslink.com/boards/ scroll down to the "Operating a Pension Consulting Firm" message board, and see if there is related discussion.

I agree with Harry O comment. An accrued benefit can decrease if it is due to a decrease in compensation. The mindset of "accrued benefit cannot go down" is an oversimplification of IRC 411(d)(6). This states that a plan amendment cannot decrease an accrued benefit.

Don't know, but it seems to me the plan spinoff would occur prior to the corporate spinoff. If that is the case, then the answer should be yes. I think the answer for vesting service is yes in any case. Perhaps someone with some actual intelligence can help.

I agree. Another point to note is that the zero might be the result of a termination of employment, followed by a rehire. In that case, it should be obvious that the intent of "high 5 out of last 10" refers to years in which the participant actually worked. Unless there is precedent to prevent it, seems likely that the purpose of the plan is to exclude the zero years. This probably means you go back further to identify the last 10. Probably not a problem to amend the plan to clarify.