GBurns

What ever happened regarding this PLR? Did you verify its authenticity and its # by looking it up on the IRS website or other reaearch site?

I would advise against this employer interpreting the Regs other than they are actually written. It probably was written that way because adoption and election to participate are prospective not retroactive. This would apply wherther or not this MERP is employer or employee funded and even more so if there is any employee pre-tax salary reduction. The employee salary reduction is done in advance and as per the Regs not subject to change except for a QE. A temporary reduction in hrs worked should not qualify as a QE. Even if it could be done, I see no economic benefit to the employer, but I see administrative headaches and increased cost. Why bother?

What sort of 403(b) eligible entity is this in which you can become an owner?

Daniel Clark; You state that "It is a simple task to identify exactly what expenses are for any mutual fund, whether that fund share is owned by an individual or a qualified retirement plan. Morningstar Principia is an excellant centralized source of information for mutual funds." But as pointed out by jmarini in an earlier post, there are some very important and costly items that are not in Morningstar's listing or calculation of a fund's expense ratio. In fact it seems that in general these are not made known to the share holder, So the share holder does not know of the expense. How then is it "a simple task"???? if a share holder does not know what the expense items are, when they are incurred, how much they cost or even when and how they are extracted from his/her account??

Does all this mean that no one really knows for sure what fund expenses really are?

Will you please recheck that PLR #, the number that you gave was not compatible with the numbers used on either the IRS, Legalbitstream or UncleFed website.

I am curious as to why the form is needed. What problem will it solve? One thought that came to mind was that the Plan for some reason lacked sufficient funds to fully distribute balances to plan participants and so this person wants to give up their benefits so that others can get. But that seems to raise questions of gifting or assigment of income, both of which might cause the amount waived to be taxable to those who subsequently receive it, assuming that a participant can really waive. I also wondered if waiving would not be an impermissable distribution.

The questions asked were: By flosfur: "what are the various implications for Form 5500 and employee account balances @ 2002 as well as the contributions planned by the employer for 2003." By jkharvey: "what are the problems involved w/ leaving the allocation of the match contributions as they were actually made? Does this make sense?" Both stated that the employer's deduction or deductibility was not an issue..."Outside of the income tax deduction issue" and "Other than the tax deduction issue (that is for the CPA to worry about)"

And 318 states "Attribution from partnerships, estates, trusts, and corporations.-" thereby clearly not limited to corporations as stated by mbozek. The Treas Regs 1.401(a)(9) also cited by mbozek were no different in addressing other than only corporations.

Joel Your post points out the FACT that a Public School, regardless of what some experts say, can sponsor a 401(k). However, it still remains that a public school cannot sponsor a NEW 401(k). Quite a few do have a 401(k) only because they sponsored it before the closing in 1986. So regardless of what some experts say it is possible for a Public School to have a 401(k) as your post points out. But it is no longer possible to start a new one.

Therein lies the question. When the restaurant etc unilaterally puts it there, whether a reasonable amount or not, and the person does not object but pays the bill, you then willingly reimburse, Why not give the same treatment when that same person themself unilaterally and thinking that it is necessary and reasonable,adds it on to the bill?

The application is dated in 1999, and there is no mention of a response on their site, Does anyone know what has happened or what was the DoL response?

Are plans even allowed to receive and use credit information for this purpose?

Section 115 has nothing to do with the eligibility to sponsor a 403(b) plan. This is is the wording used by the IRS in numerous PLRs issued to public schools: "Section 403(b)(1) of the Code provides for a limited exclusion from gross income with respect to amounts contributed for the purchase of an annuity contract, where the contract is purchased for an employee by an employer described in section 501©(3) which is exempt from tax under section 501(a), or for an employee who performs services for an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii), by an employer which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing, if all the conditions of section 403(b) are met." As far as 401(k) plans go it is very well known that a public school cannot sponsor a new 401(k) plan. However, it was you who posted that "a 401(k) plan can be sponsored by any tax exempt employer". ALL I have pointed out is that you are once again incorrect. Your reference to IRG 401(k)(4)(B) also shows that your statement "a 401(k) plan can be sponsored by any tax exempt employer" is even more inaccurate. Let's get back to the original post.

I only just found this Forum. After reading it I thought that at the least someone could have said ...Marlins????? Sorry Mike, but Greetings from South Florida, we certainly sent some heat up North.

Not quite. Rabbits only cohabit with other rabbits. Lawyers do it to any and everyone.

A search at www.google.com for, "job description" Actuary, brings up what should be quite useful to you although you will have to go through about 30 to find sufficient info with which to put together your own.

You called, Master?? I have come forth or is it fifth or did I drink the fifth first then did this second. I wonder who is on third? (This is the 4th response but the 5th post). Why not just call those companies whose SPDs you can find on the Internet? Some of them might even state who designed the site.

Without actual law and/or Treaury Regulations etc don't you think that any comment would be pure speculation at this point and would probably create wrong impressions.

What does it matter what makes Public Schools tax exempt? The fact is that they are. I questioned your statement that "whereas a 401(k) plan can be sponsored by any tax exempt employer". You still have not answered my question .. "Most if not all public school districts are tax exempt employers, Are you saying that they can set up a 401(k)??? Or did you mean "some" rather than "any"?. In my post of December 1 at 7:43 P.M. I never stated that Public Schools were exempt because of 501, that was raised later. Trying to sidetrack the issue as to whether 501© is applicable to Public Schools is irrelevant. The fact is that you are wrong NOT every tax exempt employer can sponsor a 401(k). Also none of your sidetracking or trying to prove an irrelevancy corrects your statement nor does it address the issues of the original post. No one has questioned who can sponsor a 403(b) Plan, so I do not know why you have even raised the issue. It also appears that you do not know who can sponsor 401(k) Plans. Read your posts.

What would be your feeling about those many institutions such as hotel and hotel restaurants that automatically add the gratuity to the bill? If you have to pay those because it is part of the total bill, why would it not be payable if separated? Do you not pay for prescriptions which inclde the service charge (dispensing fee)? What is the difference between one service charge and any other? They are all part of your total bill, no different from the S&H charge on medications ordered by mail.

Not knowing which publications you read, I can only make a general comment that Usually the reference to a spouse really meant dependent.

Have you seen this Private Letter Ruling? If so what is its # ? You have stated that the contributions are irrevocable and also that "this election irrevocable instead of adjustable like a cafeteria plan". These are 2 different issues that I think you might have confused. The pre-tax election is your on-going payroll deduction which then becomes your contribution when it is later deposited into the plan. Not having heard of this or seen any material before now, I cannot comment further and would love to see the alleged PLR.

Public Schools are educational institutions under 501©(3). Public Schools also usually are either a political subdivision of a State, or an agency or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision. IRC 403(b)(1) does not pertain to "entites that can sponsor a 403(b) plan. ", it pertains to "Taxability of beneficiary under annuity purchased by section 501©(3) organization or public school.-" Although it does give some indication and makes reference to 170(b) which section deals with charitable contributions. What was your point? Nothing has clarified that the surviving entity will be able to sponsor either a 403(b) or a 401(k). You still did not answer the question that I asked re 401(k).

The expenses incurred taking that same child to the local Dr would be reimburseable. I have not seen where either the IRC or the Treas Regs restrict where the needed services must be obtained. If the needed services are not available locally then it is only logical that they must travel to wherever those services are available. Would you want this employee to send the child by themself to the local Dr? The answer is most likely NO. So why would you want the employee to send the child by themself in an impaired condition out of state? Has the medical facility or treating Drs recommended that a parent visit periodically? Does the treatment require parental monitoring and consent sign-offs? The requirement for a parent goes beyond the providing of just transportation, there are guardianship, nurturing, comforting, parental consent issues, provider communication issues and other issues that are also involved. Ask any nurse or dentist how difficult it is to give a shot or admnister many medicines without a parent in attendance. It is sometimes almost impossible. So without the parent there is no medical treatment. That is why the parent is part of the medical care. One parent.. Yes. Second parent.. No.