david rigby

Yes, being a "safe-harbor" plan means that the plan is deemed to be non-discriminatory. But be careful about this because the plan must be safe harbor in all areas, not just in the permitted disparity. This includes such issues as the definition of comp, normal form, uniformity of benefits, etc. For example, I had a plan that was safe harbor (actually quite vanilla) in all areas except that the normal form was a life annuity with 10 years certain. This failed the safe harbor definition because the SS integration was defined assuming a life annuity. General Test.

Gary, not exactly on point to your comment, but be careful about safe harbor. We have noticed that quite a few safe harbor plans do not pass the general test.

Correct. IRC 401(l) is essentially a safe-harbor definition of SS integration. As always, if you fall outside of safe-harbor, then 401(a)(4) testing applies.

I think that freezing the plan at 5/15/2000 will freeze new benefit accruals/contributions and participation but won't freeze the investment of the exising accounts. What does the plan say about how the money is invested? The plan must define how often earnings on invested monies are allocated (at least once per year), so the assets are what the assets are.

I might be missing something, but all of the prior discussion seems to be focusing on automatically making such transfers. What about employee election? Where you have such identical plans, what does the plan say about this?

Here is some prior discussion. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7127 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=6744 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=4462

A few thoughts. Honesty never goes out of style. We had a session at the 1998 Enrolled Actuaries Meeting titled "Exercising Professional Judgement". Do you have a copy?

I'm confused. What does the Designated Hitter rule have to do with a 401(k) plan?

I don't know if you can but I would recommend against it. Each plan has to report the income on a 1099-R separately, both to the participant and to the IRS. Why try to get it confused.

I don't think the Alternate Payee gets counted as a separate participant for anything, certainly not for purposes of the 5500 form. I think you would "attribute" the prior distribution to the employee/participant.

Kip has this absolutely correct.

A better question is "what is the plan's definition of compensation?" The plan will usually define the period (such as plan year or calendar year) and what comp is included (such as gross pay, base pay, etc.). The rule of thumb is "definitions rule".

Well, precedent might be important. My interpretation (of the phrasing you have given) would be to use the UP84 Table (that is, no setback or setforward, which is the same as 20% female weighting). Of course, post-GATT this might still be the definition, with the GATT value serving as a minimum.

Just an observation, that small plans do not have different vesting schedules in qualified plans. More likely would be differences influenced by industry, rather than size (see, size doesn't matter). However, small plans are more likely to be top-heavy, which means that they are more likely to be affected by the top-heavy vesting schedule.

Problems big time! See Revenue Ruling 85-131. The 415 maximum is subject to phase-in. Try this to link to that revenue ruling: http://www.taxlinks.com/rulings/findinglis...evrulmaster.htm

I'll be glad to send an invoice for services rendered. Just let me know where to mail it.

Well, I was really focusing on whether there is real jurisdiction. That is, if a church (without changing itself) wants to revoke its election, ERISA would prohibit this revocation, but is such prohibition really enforceable?

While we're on this topic, I have a corollary question. Under ERISA, a church can "elect" to have its pension plan covered, and this is supposed to be a one-time non-revocable election. Any examples of a church trying to "unelect"?

"Are these investments common?" I think the question answers itself. No they are not common, else you would not have to ask. I'm a bit disturbed by the statement "...there are many moral issues concerning viaticals but they are really are not relevant in this case." Moral issues are always relevant. They may not be a legal issue, but that does not eliminate their relevance. There is a different question as to whether in fact viatical policies are immoral. My reading on this subject does not draw a conclusion (but that is my opinion). However, my hunch is that many employees would not find this to be an attractive investment option. Just a guess.

Are the insured lives "related" in any way to the plan or the plan sponsor?

Points by Wessex are quite good. IMHO, the primary reason that plan sponsors and administrators have such low regard for the minimum distribution rules is the complexity, not the policy. The micro-management of this issue is just one of many.

Looks like the plan still exists. Yes, 5500s should have been filed. I wonder why the IRS has not sent a "where is your 5500" letter.

I believe that the answer is to look at the entire population of active participants. However, at the risk of dodging the original question, here are links to some earlier discussion on partial terminations. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=7164

If the "organization" is a governmental one, there might be other issues involved.

Ditto. My reaction is that repayments must always come from after-tax money.